Eldritch Blast and Warcaster question

[Ardantis]

I was over on the whirlwind thread, and it was made clear to me that you may move between attacks of Eldritch Blast as if they were attacks granted by the Extra Attack feature.

This made me wonder about the interaction between Warcaster and Eldritch Blast.

If you have the Warcaster feat, and get an Opportunity Attack, and you decide to take said Opportunity Attack with Eldritch Blast, and your Eldritch Blast has multiple beams, how many beams do you resolve the Opportunity Attack with?

What other spells might this affect? Magic Missile? Scorching Ray?

[Submortimer]

You cast the spell, getting all attacks involved. It works the same way for magic missile, sorching ray, or any other spell that can target multiple creatures. Nothing about the wording of the rules indicates otherwise.

[Arial Black]

Eldritch blast has an instantaneous duration; the entire spell effects appear and disappear in the same instant, so every beam exists for the very same instant, making all the beams simultaneous.

You cannot shoot one beam, see how it turns out, then decide who to target based on that information. Nor can you shoot one beam, move, then shoot another. In order to do so, the spell would have to have a duration which was longer than instantaneous.

When casting this or any other instantaneous spell, using its normal casting time or by using your reaction due to the feat, you must choose your targets before resolving any of the beams. You might waste some. Tough.

[D.U.P.A.]

And how is repelling blast during opportunity resolved then? When the first ray hits, others are made without advantage since the target is already pushed? How this affect the path of the target which is moving away?

[Arial Black]

And how is repelling blast during opportunity resolved then? When the first ray hits, others are made without advantage since the target is already pushed? How this affect the path of the target which is moving away?

All of the beams (that hit) strike simultaneously. The target is standing in that same spot as each beam hits at the same time. Each beam moves the target from that point to a point 10-feet further back, and none of the beams realise that the other beams are moving the same target the exact same 10-feet.

Any single target only moves back by 10-feet, no matter how many beams hit. If several targets are hit, each is moved back 10-feet.

Anyway, for any spell (including instantaneous spells), the effects of that spell take place entirely within its duration, which means that every single effect of an instantaneous spell occurs entirely within the same instant.

What about the beams? The beams are the effect of the spell. The spell causes 'beam(s) of crackling energy (to) streak towards' a creature or creatues. Just like the effect of the lightning bolt spell is that 'A stroke of lightning...blasts out from you in a direction you choose'. Both the lightning bolt and the beams are the effects of the spell.

Don't believe me? Check out p202, 'Casting a Spell'. "Each spell description in chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect."

Where are the beams described? In the spell's effect. There is nothing in the preceding stat block of the spell that describes any beams. The beams are the effect of the spell. Since the spell itself is instantaneous, every part of the effect of the spell, every single beam, only exists for that very same instant, making the beams simultaneous.

[MarkTriumphant]

All of the beams (that hit) strike simultaneously. The target is standing in that same spot as each beam hits at the same time. Each beam moves the target from that point to a point 10-feet further back, and none of the beams realise that the other beams are moving the same target the exact same 10-feet.

Any single target only moves back by 10-feet, no matter how many beams hit. If several targets are hit, each is moved back 10-feet.

I think you are right about everything else you wrote, but do you have a citation for this? While my Warlock doesn't yet have Repelling Blast, I was intending to get it, but this would change how the spell is used, possibly making it better to hit multiple targets.

[TheOOB]

When making multiple attacks you can choose each target before each roll, looking at the results of previous rules. That's what it says in the combat chapter and I see no rules that would make Eldritch Blast an exception.

The instantaneous duration means there is no duration, no lasting magical effects after the spell, nothing to dispel or concentrate on. It does not affect how the text of the spell works. Assuming that instantaneous duration changes the attacking rules or implies something beyond what if written in the text is a leap in logic I don't think the rules support.

[caden_varn]

I thought the errata clarified Warcaster to only allow spells which cannot target more than one creature, which would disallow Eldritch blast after 4th level? I am AFB at the moment, so I cannot double check this.

And yes, it would be bizarre for the spell to suddenly stop working like this. I suspect many DMs may houserule it...

[D.U.P.A.]

All of the beams (that hit) strike simultaneously. The target is standing in that same spot as each beam hits at the same time. Each beam moves the target from that point to a point 10-feet further back, and none of the beams realise that the other beams are moving the same target the exact same 10-feet.

Any single target only moves back by 10-feet, no matter how many beams hit. If several targets are hit, each is moved back 10-feet.

Anyway, for any spell (including instantaneous spells), the effects of that spell take place entirely within its duration, which means that every single effect of an instantaneous spell occurs entirely within the same instant.

What about the beams? The beams are the effect of the spell. The spell causes 'beam(s) of crackling energy (to) streak towards' a creature or creatues. Just like the effect of the lightning bolt spell is that 'A stroke of lightning...blasts out from you in a direction you choose'. Both the lightning bolt and the beams are the effects of the spell.

Don't believe me? Check out p202, 'Casting a Spell'. "Each spell description in chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect."

Where are the beams described? In the spell's effect. There is nothing in the preceding stat block of the spell that describes any beams. The beams are the effect of the spell. Since the spell itself is instantaneous, every part of the effect of the spell, every single beam, only exists for that very same instant, making the beams simultaneous.

Interesting, I already thought how broken is repelling blast, pushing the target 40 feet away from you (which would allow many exploits).

[Submortimer]

All of the beams (that hit) strike simultaneously. The target is standing in that same spot as each beam hits at the same time. Each beam moves the target from that point to a point 10-feet further back, and none of the beams realise that the other beams are moving the same target the exact same 10-feet.

Any single target only moves back by 10-feet, no matter how many beams hit. If several targets are hit, each is moved back 10-feet.

I will say that neither I nor any DM I have run across rules it this way. You get moved per beam that hits you. Logically, I can see where you're coming from, but Mechanically i'm not sure it's intended to work that way.

[PoeticDwarf]

I was over on the whirlwind thread, and it was made clear to me that you may move between attacks of Eldritch Blast as if they were attacks granted by the Extra Attack feature.

This made me wonder about the interaction between Warcaster and Eldritch Blast.

If you have the Warcaster feat, and get an Opportunity Attack, and you decide to take said Opportunity Attack with Eldritch Blast, and your Eldritch Blast has multiple beams, how many beams do you resolve the Opportunity Attack with?

What other spells might this affect? Magic Missile? Scorching Ray?
All of them, you can make one attack and with warcaster cast one spell. So you cast the spell and fire 1, 2, 3 or 4 beams.

[Arial Black]

When making multiple attacks you can choose each target before each roll, looking at the results of previous rules. That's what it says in the combat chapter and I see no rules that would make Eldritch Blast an exception.

The instantaneous duration means there is no duration, no lasting magical effects after the spell, nothing to dispel or concentrate on. It does not affect how the text of the spell works. Assuming that instantaneous duration changes the attacking rules or implies something beyond what if written in the text is a leap in logic I don't think the rules support.

The part of the rules you are looking at is the part talking about multiple attacks when you take the attack action. When you take the attack action, this gives you permission to take all of the attacks you are allowed, and you can execute those attacks from the moment you take the attack action until the end of your turn. The attack action doesn't have a listed duration, but its effective duration is 1 round or one turn. Each individual attack has no listed duration either (neither actions no attacks use 'duration' in the game), but are effectively 'instantaneous' as far as how they work within the rules.

Eldritch blast doesn't work that way. First, you are not using the attack action so rules about how the attack action works (spreading your attacks across your turn, taking each attack consecutively) do not apply to things which are not the attack action.

Second, you must use the 'cast a spell' action (which Warcaster lets you cast as a reaction), and you must obey the rules for the Cast a Spell action, and the rules for spellcasting. Unlike weapon attacks, spells have a duration. Every single part of the effect of that spell happens entirely within its duration. If a spell has an instantaneous duration, then every single part of that effect happens in the same instant, and that means they are simultaneous.

'Instantaneous duration' does not mean 'no duration'. It means that it has an infinitely small, but non-zero, duration'. 'Infinitely small' means it cannot be divided into smaller parts. You cannot shoot one beam, see how it turns out, and decide where to shoot the next beam, because the first beam is instantaneous and the entire spell is instantaneous so the entire spell begins and ends in that instant, the same instant that the first beam (and therefore all the beams) exist.

[Arial Black]

I will say that neither I nor any DM I have run across rules it this way. You get moved per beam that hits you. Logically, I can see where you're coming from, but Mechanically i'm not sure it's intended to work that way.

Well, I'm sure that many DMs run it the other way. But from a rules perspective, Repelling Blast could easily have been worded as pushing the target back by 10-feet per beam. But it doesn't say, or mean, 10-feet per beam. It says that each beam moves you back 10-feet. Each beam hits you, simultaneously, when you are standing at point A. Each beam moves you back from the point where they hit you to a point 10-feet behind where you were when they hit you, point B. At no time did any beam hit you when you were standing at point B (to move you further back to point C), because every beam that hit, hit you when you were at point A.

Further, the game rules expressly point out (in chapter 10) that a spell's effect is not cumulative with itself, unless it says so. If it had said '10-feet per beam', then you'd be pushed back by 10-feet per beam that hit. But it doesn't make an exception. The spell has been modified to push you back if it, or any part of it, hits you. It is not cumulative with itself, in accordance with the general rules for magic, as well as the consequences of the spell being instantaneous.

[ThermalSlapShot]

I was over on the whirlwind thread, and it was made clear to me that you may move between attacks of Eldritch Blast as if they were attacks granted by the Extra Attack feature.

This made me wonder about the interaction between Warcaster and Eldritch Blast.

If you have the Warcaster feat, and get an Opportunity Attack, and you decide to take said Opportunity Attack with Eldritch Blast, and your Eldritch Blast has multiple beams, how many beams do you resolve the Opportunity Attack with?

What other spells might this affect? Magic Missile? Scorching Ray?


With how the devs ruled the Sorcerer's Twin Spell metamagic and applying that to this... Eldritch Blast can not be used with Warcaster once you get your second beam.

Once a spell has multiple targets it becomes a multi target spell. Before it has multiple targets it is a single target spell.

Scorching Ray doesn't work with Twin Spell because you can target more than one creature with it, even though you may only target one creature.

Warcaster requires a single target spell.

Eldritch Blast is a single target spell until 5th Character Level where it becomes a multi targeted spell. This makes Eldritch Blast unqualified in the rules of warcaster.

Now with spells of 1st level or higher that start with single target and then gain more targets you can twin spell it, IF you use it in the lowest slot that does not have multiple targets. So 2nd level Hold Person is valid to Twin Spell. 3rd level Hold Person is NOT valid for twin spell.

Cantrips are always cast at the same level, you can't cast it as a lower or higher level by expending slots or anything such as that. Therefore once you hit 5th level you always have 2 beams, 11th level 3 beams, and 17th level 4 beams.

Upon reaching 5th level Eldritch Blast does not qualify, and neither does magic missile or scorching ray, for Warcaster. No matter if you target one creature or not the Spells are still multi targeted.

All that being said I would allow a cantrip to be delivered and used in this situation. One beam from eldritch blast through the OA.

TL;DR: Eldritch Blast doesn't work once you hit level 5. Scorching Ray and Magic Missile never work. As a DM I would allow cantrips to be depowered and used through Warcaster.

[Kryx]

As a DM I would allow cantrips to be depowered and used through Warcaster.
This is the most balanced option. Agreed.

[Glarx]

Warcaster requires a single target spell.

Quick question -- I'm super, super new to 5e so I apologize if this was covered in the errata or not. :smallredface:

The rules for Warcaster don't require a single target spell, from what I'm reading. It requires that "the spell [...] must target only that creature." That's a difference, isn't it? Must be able to target only that creature v. must only target that creature... The wording, to me at least, seems to indicate you can't use this AoO to fire an eldritch blast that targets 4 separate targets, instead of that you have to use a single-target spell.

Thoughts? Am I totally wrong?

[FatherLiir]

Quick question -- I'm super, super new to 5e so I apologize if this was covered in the errata or not. :smallredface:

The rules for Warcaster don't require a single target spell, from what I'm reading. It requires that "the spell [...] must target only that creature." That's a difference, isn't it? Must be able to target only that creature v. must only target that creature... The wording, to me at least, seems to indicate you can't use this AoO to fire an eldritch blast that targets 4 separate targets, instead of that you have to use a single-target spell.

Thoughts? Am I totally wrong?


The way I see it, if you chose to use Eldritch Blast as your Opportunity Attack, you can ONLY target the one who has triggered the O.A. so even if you were a level 20 Warlock with 4 Eldritch blast rays, all rays must target the same O.A. target.

I mean, you need to be
1) at least level 17 to use all four rays (but level five using 2 is still pretty sweet)
2) Use up one of your 8 total invocation slots for (at level 5 you only have, what 3)
3) And either be a Variant Human OR be at level 4 and give up a Ability Score increase so you're delaying 20 CHA till later.

All of which seem like steep tradeoffs to attack someone in Melee when he choses to run away from you, rather than trying to kill a semi-squishy caster or moderately armored bladelock.

[Glarx]

My question was just about whether War Caster is actually limited to a single target spell, or whether the spell must only target the person who provoked the attack of opportunity. I agree with you -- if it's a multi-strike EB, it must target the individual who provoked the AoO with every eldritch blast from the casting.

[ThermalSlapShot]

The way I see it, if you chose to use Eldritch Blast as your Opportunity Attack, you can ONLY target the one who has triggered the O.A. so even if you were a level 20 Warlock with 4 Eldritch blast rays, all rays must target the same O.A. target.

I mean, you need to be
1) at least level 17 to use all four rays (but level five using 2 is still pretty sweet)
2) Use up one of your 8 total invocation slots for (at level 5 you only have, what 3)
3) And either be a Variant Human OR be at level 4 and give up a Ability Score increase so you're delaying 20 CHA till later.

All of which seem like steep tradeoffs to attack someone in Melee when he choses to run away from you, rather than trying to kill a semi-squishy caster or moderately armored bladelock.

This issue is that Eldritch Blast from level 5 onward doesn't only target the creature. It targets multiple creatures as a base form.

Sure you could rule lawyer the ability in order to cast "Fireball" as long as it doesn't hit anyone else but that is just pushing the rules.

A spell that only targets a creature is a single target spell.

As we have seen from the tweets/errata/whatever if a spell can target more than one creature it is counted as being able to do so even if you target a single creature. Scorching Ray and Twin Metamagic is the prime example here.

By RAW you can not use Eldritch Blast with Warcaster at or past level 5 as it no longer targets one creature but targets multiple creatures even if it can be made to target one creature (just like scorching ray and twin spell metamagic).

The best thing to do is to ask JC via twitter. There you can get a RAW answer as his tweets act as errata/clarification due to wotc saying as much.

[Glarx]

A spell that only targets a creature is a single target spell.

As we have seen from the tweets/errata/whatever if a spell can target more than one creature it is counted as being able to do so even if you target a single creature. Scorching Ray and Twin Metamagic is the prime example here.

By RAW you can not use Eldritch Blast with Warcaster at or past level 5 as it no longer targets one creature but targets multiple creatures even if it can be made to target one creature (just like scorching ray and twin spell metamagic).

The reason I'm not convinced by the scorching ray / twinned spell argument is the wording of twin spell. "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature," says Twinned Spell. War Caster, meanwhile states "the spell [...] must target only that creature." If you feel that difference is a matter for rules lawyers alone, then we'll have to agree to disagree. To me, the change is substantive. :smallsmile:

[Kryx]

The reason I'm not convinced by the scorching ray / twinned spell argument is the wording of twin spell. "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature," says Twinned Spell. War Caster, meanwhile states "the spell [...] must target only that creature." If you feel that difference is a matter for rules lawyers alone, then we'll have to agree to disagree. To me, the change is substantive. :smallsmile:
One vs that. They're both singular. Where. Is the difference?

[Glarx]

One vs that. They're both singular. Where. Is the difference?

A spell that targets one creature cannot have the power to target more than one creature (without external modification, but that's neither here nor there). A spell that targets that creature needs to target that creature. The difference is if I shoot ten beams and each beam can hit someone different, it doesn't target one creature. If I direct all ten beams on the same person, the spell is targeting that person. That's the difference I see.

Why does it matter? To me, the limitation on War Caster exists so that you can't shoot a scorching ray at the person who provoked the attack of opportunity as well as his two friends who didn't provoke one.

[GiantOctopodes]

The part of the rules you are looking at is the part talking about multiple attacks when you take the attack action. When you take the attack action, this gives you permission to take all of the attacks you are allowed, and you can execute those attacks from the moment you take the attack action until the end of your turn. The attack action doesn't have a listed duration, but its effective duration is 1 round or one turn. Each individual attack has no listed duration either (neither actions no attacks use 'duration' in the game), but are effectively 'instantaneous' as far as how they work within the rules.

Eldritch blast doesn't work that way. First, you are not using the attack action so rules about how the attack action works (spreading your attacks across your turn, taking each attack consecutively) do not apply to things which are not the attack action.

Second, you must use the 'cast a spell' action (which Warcaster lets you cast as a reaction), and you must obey the rules for the Cast a Spell action, and the rules for spellcasting. Unlike weapon attacks, spells have a duration. Every single part of the effect of that spell happens entirely within its duration. If a spell has an instantaneous duration, then every single part of that effect happens in the same instant, and that means they are simultaneous.

'Instantaneous duration' does not mean 'no duration'. It means that it has an infinitely small, but non-zero, duration'. 'Infinitely small' means it cannot be divided into smaller parts. You cannot shoot one beam, see how it turns out, and decide where to shoot the next beam, because the first beam is instantaneous and the entire spell is instantaneous so the entire spell begins and ends in that instant, the same instant that the first beam (and therefore all the beams) exist.

You're right about the first part- per the rules, as you are taking the "cast a spell" action, not the attack action, you cannot move between attacks, even if multiple attacks are provided by the spell.

However, instantaneous duration does not mean infinitely small, but non-zero duration. In the case of D&D 5E, what it means is less than 1 round, cannot be dispelled, as there are no durations other than instantaneous for effects that last less than 1 round. As a round is 6 seconds long, all beams must strike the target within a 6 second span. That does not mean in any way they must all strike simultaneously. That requirement is never explicitly or implicitly stated by the rules.

Note that for spells with a casting time of Reaction, it states "Some spells can be cast as reactions. These spells take a fraction of a second to bring about", while bonus action spells say "A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift", so if eldritch blast is neither a fraction of a second, nor especially swift, I would argue that it definitely is not an infinitely small casting time occupying only a single instant. I know you're going to quote me "The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can’t be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant", which I suspect is going to result in us having irreconcilable differences on this topic. I will point out now that "The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or object in a way that can't be dispelled" has direct and stated game impact and meaning. Adding additional game rules that do not exist elsewhere in what you believe is support of the statement "because its magic exists only for an instant" is a houserule. Clearly, in your eyes, a justified one, but a houserule nonetheless.

Eldritch Blast, like Scorching ray, has multiple attacks within it. Looking at the rules for making an attack, we see it does indeed apply to this, as it states "Whether you’re striking with a melee w eapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure"
"1. Choose a target"
"2. Determine modifiers"
"3. Resolve the attack"
So, as with all things that use multiple attacks, we would choose a target for the first attack, determine modifiers, then resolve the attack. We would then choose a target for the second attack, determine modifiers, and resolve the attack. Rinse and repeat.

As for the original question, the rules for Warcaster state that a spell is cast at the creature, as such, the spell would be cast normally, with all that implies. Also of note Repelling Blast would apply separately to each attack.

Glarx, you are absolutely correct in regards to the rules as written. Based upon them, you would get all 4 beams, all of which could only target that creature, as it states "the spell must only target that creature" and not "must only be capable of targeting a single creature". What people around here are referring to are tweets from the developers, which some consider to be modifiers to the rules written in the books. If you go with the rules that actually appear in the published materials provided, whether book or errata, it does not work in the fashion they are describing.

[ThermalSlapShot]

The reason I'm not convinced by the scorching ray / twinned spell argument is the wording of twin spell. "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature," says Twinned Spell. War Caster, meanwhile states "the spell [...] must target only that creature." If you feel that difference is a matter for rules lawyers alone, then we'll have to agree to disagree. To me, the change is substantive. :smallsmile:

Doesn't really matter if you are convinced on the Twin Spell Scorching Ray or not, JC has already confirmed that it doesn't work, so you or anyone else being convinced doesn't matter.

A spell that can target multiple creatures can not be twinned. However a spell at its base level can be twinned if you use it at its base level. If that spell can target more at a higher spell slot level then you can only use the base form.

This is why Hold Person Twin Spell works. Hold person targets one creature at its base spell slot.

Hold Person can work with Warcaster because as a first level spell it targets or creature.

Using that info + JC tweets shows us that Eldritch Blast at and past 5th level doesn't work with Warcaster. No one has to like it and people are free to houserule but that is the RAW.

[Cerberus v6.66]

The difference between the limitations for twinned spell and warcaster is in terms of the difference between capability and actual effect. Twinned spell only works on spells which are only capable of targeting a single target. Warcaster only works on spells which are currently targeting a single target.

[Glarx]

Oh, I'm utterly convinced you can't twin Scorching Ray. It's the leap from "Twinned Spell's limitations = War Caster's limitations" where you lose me. That we can have a discussion about the RAW and come to two different conclusions tells me the RAW isn't clear on the matter. :smallsmile: I suppose we'll have to wait until the next round of errata to try and clear this up. :smallsmile: EDIT: Just to be clear, when I said I wasn't convinced before, I meant I wasn't convinced the limitations of Twinned Spell+Scorching Ray = the limitations of War Caster (Warcaster? I'm AFB now and I don't remember :smallfrown:). I hope the above language is better at conveying my thoughts.

Thanks, GiantOctopodes!


The difference between the limitations for twinned spell and warcaster is in terms of the difference between capability and actual effect. Twinned spell only works on spells which are only capable of targeting a single target. Warcaster only works on spells which are currently targeting a single target.
That's my thinking, too, so I'm glad there're a few people who read the text like I do. :smallredface:

[Arial Black]

However, instantaneous duration does not mean infinitely small, but non-zero duration.

That is its literal meaning.

I accept that the game and some people may use the word imprecisely, but it still means a tiny amount of time at the most.

Technically, a nanosecond is not instantaneous, because it can be both measured and subdivided. But a nanosecond is for all intents and purposes an instant in the context of 6 second combat rounds.

Taking it to a real world example, one tenth of a second is a LOT longer, by many orders of magnitude, than a nanosecond, but if a sprinter moves within one tenth of a second after the starting pistol goes off, he is assumed to be cheating. He must have decided to move before he heard the pistol because it is deemed impossible to react in one tenth of a second.

And yet shooting a beam, seeing what happens, then using that information to decide where to shoot the next, is a lot longer process than starting to sprint, where the reactions have been trained into the subconscious.

And eldritch blast has up to four beams!

Whetever 'instantaneous' is, it is not several seconds!


In the case of D&D 5E, what it means is less than 1 round

So, say 5 seconds?


cannot be dispelled, as there are no durations other than instantaneous for effects that last less than 1 round. As a round is 6 seconds long, all beams must strike the target within a 6 second span. That does not mean in any way they must all strike simultaneously. That requirement is never explicitly or implicitly stated by the rules.

It is implied by the duration being 'instantaneous'.


Note that for spells with a casting time of Reaction, it states "Some spells can be cast as reactions. These spells take a fraction of a second to bring about", while bonus action spells say "A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift", so if eldritch blast is neither a fraction of a second, nor especially swift, I would argue that it definitely is not an infinitely small casting time occupying only a single instant. I know you're going to quote me "The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can’t be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant", which I suspect is going to result in us having irreconcilable differences on this topic. I will point out now that "The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or object in a way that can't be dispelled" has direct and stated game impact and meaning. Adding additional game rules that do not exist elsewhere in what you believe is support of the statement "because its magic exists only for an instant" is a houserule. Clearly, in your eyes, a justified one, but a houserule nonetheless.

And yet 'casting time' and 'duration' are different things. The spell has a casting time of 1 action, but a duration of instantaneous.

I am not 'houseruling' the English language! Words have meanings, 5E is proud of using 'natural language', and no natural language understanding of 'instant' leads to '5 seconds' in the context of the 6 second combat round.

[Psionic]

Oh god.

Moving between Attacks
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.

This ONLY applies to weapon attacks, not Spell attacks. You cannot move in-between your multiple-hit spells

Read the goddamned book people.

[ThermalSlapShot]

They used plain English for these rules.

Usimg plain english and not trying to rule lawyer anythig you come to "only target that creature = single target".

Using plain english they could have easily said " any spell that has only the creature as a target" but they did not. They used "must target only that creature".

The number of targets is the key. Eldritch Blast (5th ECL and up), Fireball, Scorching Ray, and a Hold Person Cast out of a 3rd or higher slot (you ran out of 2nd level slots already) do not work because they are all multitargeted Spells at heir base.

Now the devs may come out and say " any spell as long as you only target the provoking creature" which wouldn't surprise me as their rulings have been all over the place from time to time and Magic gets a huuuuge benefit of the doubt (look at Eldritch Blast invocations). But until they do, EB starting at 5th level or higher can't be used via warcaster as it is simple a multitargeted spell.

[Psionic]

The part of the rules you are looking at is the part talking about multiple attacks when you take the attack action. When you take the attack action, this gives you permission to take all of the attacks you are allowed, and you can execute those attacks from the moment you take the attack action until the end of your turn. The attack action doesn't have a listed duration, but its effective duration is 1 round or one turn. Each individual attack has no listed duration either (neither actions no attacks use 'duration' in the game), but are effectively 'instantaneous' as far as how they work within the rules.

You are a problem

The "Attack" action is not the only rule covered in "Moving between attacks." Any Action (Such as a multiattack action from a transformation or controlled unit) can count for this. You do not need to take the attack action, you just need to use an action "that includes multiple Weapon Attacks." RAW, it doesn't even prevent Flurry of blows even though it's a Bonus action.

You're right, but for absolutely all of the wrong reasons. Using your action can result in taking the "attack" action or any other type of action, but taking multiple attacks does NOT mean it's an attack.

[GiantOctopodes]

They used plain English for these rules.

Usimg plain english and not trying to rule lawyer anythig you come to "only target that creature = single target".

Using plain english they could have easily said " any spell that has only the creature as a target" but they did not. They used "must target only that creature".

The number of targets is the key. Eldritch Blast (5th ECL and up), Fireball, Scorching Ray, and a Hold Person Cast out of a 3rd or higher slot (you ran out of 2nd level slots already) do not work because they are all multitargeted Spells at heir base.

Now the devs may come out and say " any spell as long as you only target the provoking creature" which wouldn't surprise me as their rulings have been all over the place from time to time and Magic gets a huuuuge benefit of the doubt (look at Eldritch Blast invocations). But until they do, EB starting at 5th level or higher can't be used via warcaster as it is simple a multitargeted spell.

And yet, we find that plain english is not so plain.

Using plain english they could easily have said "the spell must only be capable of targeting that creature", but they did not. They used "the spell must only target that creature".

The target of the spell is the key. Both spells and making an attack have the same limitations- you pick a target in range, whether an object, creature, or location. In this case, you are limited by the text of War Caster, and that target must be the creature that provoked the opportunity attack. Any additional targets normally granted by the spell, such as if using Hold Person cast out of a 3rd level or higher slot, are wasted.

Now, the devs may come out and say "only spells which are incapable of affecting multiple targets" which wouldn't surprise me as their rulings have been all over the place from time to time and seemingly favor limiting options rather than the permissive style proposed to serve as the foundation of 5e. But until they do, and even after they do for those who follow published rules rather than dev tweets (I'm not going to hang out all day waiting for a dev to come out and change the rules of the book I purchased seemingly at their whim, if they want to change it they can publish an errata), EB starting at 5th level or higher absolutely can be used via warcaster, though it is still subject to the normal limitations of that feat and can only target the creature who provoked the opportunity attack.

See, we can read the same thing, and come to totally different conclusions, thus why "plain english" isn't the best foundation for a rule set, unless you're putting those decisions in the DM's hands. 5e claims to do so, then backs out on that premise by having a neverending and self contradicting set of changes in the form of dev tweets. Thus why I ignore them, but that's a subject for a different time. The point being, the verbiage of the ability does not specifically deny you the ability to use those spells. Any limitation to using those spells is an additional limitation, put in place by the DM, who is as always well within his rights to do so.

Edit:

That is its literal meaning.

I accept that the game and some people may use the word imprecisely, but it still means a tiny amount of time at the most.

Technically, a nanosecond is not instantaneous, because it can be both measured and subdivided. But a nanosecond is for all intents and purposes an instant in the context of 6 second combat rounds.

Taking it to a real world example, one tenth of a second is a LOT longer, by many orders of magnitude, than a nanosecond, but if a sprinter moves within one tenth of a second after the starting pistol goes off, he is assumed to be cheating. He must have decided to move before he heard the pistol because it is deemed impossible to react in one tenth of a second.

And yet shooting a beam, seeing what happens, then using that information to decide where to shoot the next, is a lot longer process than starting to sprint, where the reactions have been trained into the subconscious.

And eldritch blast has up to four beams!

Whetever 'instantaneous' is, it is not several seconds!

So, say 5 seconds?

It is implied by the duration being 'instantaneous'.

And yet 'casting time' and 'duration' are different things. The spell has a casting time of 1 action, but a duration of instantaneous.

I am not 'houseruling' the English language! Words have meanings, 5E is proud of using 'natural language', and no natural language understanding of 'instant' leads to '5 seconds' in the context of the 6 second combat round.

Your reaction is exactly as expected and I have nothing really new to say to you. I will point out that it must be over 3 seconds, otherwise it could be done twice in a round. The cast time is one action, the duration is instantaneous, which in D&D terms means cannot be dispelled. When I look at Scorching Ray, which uses the same setup, I see it as describing someone throwing cometlike baseballs of fire at enemies, one after the other, just like throwing multiple daggers or whatever else, since that is the way the rules interact with that spell. You obviously imagine it differently, which is all well and good. The reason it's a houserule though is because you are ignoring the structure of making an attack, during an ability that makes multiple attacks. Your justification is described in your quote above, but you're negating part of the rules text as it relates to the spell, thus the houserule.

I will also point out that I agree that the decision making process is much longer than a reaction, which then makes all the sense in the world as to why warcaster would limit targeting in that way. When cast as a reaction, with Warcaster it requires specifically that the only target be the creature that provoked the OA. In that case, it is much closer to what you describe, blindly letting loose in their direction and hoping for the best due to time constraints.

[ThermalSlapShot]

And yet, we find that plain english is not so plain.

Using plain english they could easily have said "the spell must only be capable of targeting that creature", but they did not. They used "the spell must only target that creature".

The target of the spell is the key. Both spells and making an attack have the same limitations- you pick a target in range, whether an object, creature, or location. In this case, you are limited by the text of War Caster, and that target must be the creature that provoked the opportunity attack. Any additional targets normally granted by the spell, such as if using Hold Person cast out of a 3rd level or higher slot, are wasted.

Now, the devs may come out and say "only spells which are incapable of affecting multiple targets" which wouldn't surprise me as their rulings have been all over the place from time to time and seemingly favor limiting options rather than the permissive style proposed to serve as the foundation of 5e. But until they do, and even after they do for those who follow published rules rather than dev tweets (I'm not going to hang out all day waiting for a dev to come out and change the rules of the book I purchased seemingly at their whim, if they want to change it they can publish an errata), EB starting at 5th level or higher absolutely can be used via warcaster, though it is still subject to the normal limitations of that feat and can only target the creature who provoked the opportunity attack.

See, we can read the same thing, and come to totally different conclusions, thus why "plain english" isn't the best foundation for a rule set, unless you're putting those decisions in the DM's hands. 5e claims to do so, then backs out on that premise by having a neverending and self contradicting set of changes in the form of dev tweets. Thus why I ignore them, but that's a subject for a different time. The point being, the verbiage of the ability does not specifically deny you the ability to use those spells. Any limitation to using those spells is an additional limitation, put in place by the DM, who is as always well within his rights to do so.

Edit:


Your reaction is exactly as expected and I have nothing really new to say to you. I will point out that it must be over 3 seconds, otherwise it could be done twice in a round. The cast time is one action, the duration is instantaneous, which in D&D terms means cannot be dispelled. When I look at Scorching Ray, which uses the same setup, I see it as describing someone throwing cometlike baseballs of fire at enemies, one after the other, just like throwing multiple daggers or whatever else, since that is the way the rules interact with that spell. You obviously imagine it differently, which is all well and good. The reason it's a houserule though is because you are ignoring the structure of making an attack, during an ability that makes multiple attacks. Your justification is described in your quote above, but you're negating part of the rules text as it relates to the spell, thus the houserule.

I will also point out that I agree that the decision making process is much longer than a reaction, which then makes all the sense in the world as to why warcaster would limit targeting in that way. When cast as a reaction, with Warcaster it requires specifically that the only target be the creature that provoked the OA. In that case, it is much closer to what you describe, blindly letting loose in their direction and hoping for the best due to time constraints.


Plain English + Previous Rulings = No Warcaster for Eldritch Blast @ or above 5th level.

And although martial and Magic isn't treated the same when determining rules, magic is typically ruled on even ground with other magic.

Try as much as people want but you can't get around this.

[GiantOctopodes]

Plain English + Previous Rulings = No Warcaster for Eldritch Blast @ or above 5th level.

And although martial and Magic isn't treated the same when determining rules, magic is typically ruled on even ground with other magic.

Try as much as people want but you can't get around this.

There is no previous ruling regarding Warcaster. The text is different between the abilities.

Try as much as people want but the rules state one thing, and no ruling to the contrary exists.

[Citan]

Plain English + Previous Rulings = No Warcaster for Eldritch Blast @ or above 5th level.

And although martial and Magic isn't treated the same when determining rules, magic is typically ruled on even ground with other magic.

Try as much as people want but you can't get around this.
Hi!
Sorry to jump in the discussion suddenly, still I felt compelled to react when I read you use the argument of plain English.

Why? Because especially "plain English" goes against you. GiantOctopodes tried to explain, I'll take my chance also now. Please bear with me. :)


Twinned Spell: "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn't have a range of self, you can use sorcery points (blabla) to target a second creature within range."
So, "plain English" says: you have to RESTRICT YOUR CHOICE of spell among all, to ONES THAT CAN TARGET ONLY ONE CREATURE.

Warcaster: "When a hostile creature’s movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature."
So, "plain English" says: you can choose to use your 'opportunity reaction' to cast a spell which casting time is no longer than one action, but you cannot target any other creature than the one giving opportunity.

So, why would be this lecture of the rules be the good one (beyond being the "plain English" lecture you like to refer to)?

FIRST. Wording
If they really wanted to apply the same restriction as with Twinned Spell, they would have worded it the same. Something like...
"You can use your reaction to cast a spell that targets only one creature" or even "cast a spell that can target only one creature". Then keeping the rest as is.
This is an important point, considering the care with which they reused expressions across the book to ensure consistency.

SECOND: Game balance
The difference in treatment would be perfectly coherent with balance. Considering high-level spellcaster with Eldritch Blast...

a) If we allowed Twin Spell with it, it would bring 4*2=8 rays, effectively doubling damage for a mere 1 MP.
Nice game-breaking potential here, especially considering MP regeneration and Agonizing Blast. This means a Sorcerer could make at most (1d10+CHA)*8 each turn, for, what at least 20 rounds? Why play anything else?

b) If we allowed Warcaster with it, it would allow you to, basically, use your class feature as you would with a normal action. Would it be game-breaking? We are looking at (1d10+CHA)*4, each rolled with disadvantage (unless you invest also in Crossbow Expert).
Compare that to Leader builds (Polearm Master, Sentinel), the Paladin Smite (legit on AoO) or Rogue's Sneak attack (idem): both options far exceed in raw damage the EB, and are made without disadvantage. And they can use it each round also.

THIRD: Intention
Putting aside EB and similar spells from Twin is coherent with the intent: why get additional targets on spells that already gain additional targets with level?
In the contrary, suddenly forbidding the use of a spell although you just gained experience (which implies normally more power and control) feels totally out-of-place and incoherent. Basically, your interpretation could be summed up as...
"Congrats. You've become a high-level spellcaster. Good news: you can launch multiple beams of your signature spell. Bad news: you're now forbidden to use the spell in a reaction as you've been using it for the last months/years. Dealing middle-range damage would be overpowered you know. However, once you know them, feel free to use your reaction to blast damage-spell from higher spell slot, or Banish, Polymorph, Reduce your enemy, even just outright Power Kill him." Which are all far more dangerous options for the target imo.

FOURTH: Correct rules articulation
By the way, with your interpretation, one could partially bypass the intended restriction of Warcaster: since you consider the restrictions apply to the CHOICE of the spell, and not its use, one could simply choose a single-target spell (such as those cited) AND TWIN IT!! With ours, that would be impossible since it would effectively mean "not targeting only the creature giving opportunity". Which of the both is more rule-bending and potentially game-breaking, I wonder... :)

[Arial Black]

Instantaneous must mean over 3 seconds, otherwise it could be cast twice????

This is more than one misunderstanding!

The Cast a Spell action could be imagined to take more than 3 seconds (if you like), but 'casting time' and 'spell duration' are different things!

The duration is instantaneous, but if the casting time is more than three seconds you couldn't cast more than one in 6 seconds even if instantaneous were a nanosecond!

BTW, in the context of the 6 second combat round, 'instantaneous' cannot mean more than 3 seconds.

{scrubbed}

[Vogonjeltz]

Interesting, I already thought how broken is repelling blast, pushing the target 40 feet away from you (which would allow many exploits).

Repelling blast applies to the spell as a whole, not to individual beams. Thus it moves a single target no more than 10 feet. That being said, you could move 4 targets 10 feet each.

*although Eldritch blast would be ineligible to target multiple creatures, so it's pretty worthless with war caster.

[Mechaviking]

Well, I'm sure that many DMs run it the other way. But from a rules perspective, Repelling Blast could easily have been worded as pushing the target back by 10-feet per beam. But it doesn't say, or mean, 10-feet per beam. It says that each beam moves you back 10-feet. Each beam hits you, simultaneously, when you are standing at point A. Each beam moves you back from the point where they hit you to a point 10-feet behind where you were when they hit you, point B. At no time did any beam hit you when you were standing at point B (to move you further back to point C), because every beam that hit, hit you when you were at point A.

Further, the game rules expressly point out (in chapter 10) that a spell's effect is not cumulative with itself, unless it says so. If it had said '10-feet per beam', then you'd be pushed back by 10-feet per beam that hit. But it doesn't make an exception. The spell has been modified to push you back if it, or any part of it, hits you. It is not cumulative with itself, in accordance with the general rules for magic, as well as the consequences of the spell being instantaneous.

The invocation specifically says on a hit, some people(myself included) refer to that as it can push a creature 10 feet for each hit. But still its a nice catch I´ll ask my DM tomorrow what he thinks about it and how he wants to deal with it(if someone plays warlock).

[Ardantis]

So... it sounds like this to me.

You can't move between blasts (Casts a Spell Action).

Multiple uses of Repelling are up in the air.

Agonizing applies to each beam (tweet).

You can't Twin it (It is a multi-targeting spell).

It can be used with Warcaster, but only if you target the same creature with each beam.

ALSO, you are at disadvantage with Warcaster unless you were wielding a Reach weapon OR you have Crossbow Expert.

Thanks!

[PoeticDwarf]

They used plain English for these rules.

Usimg plain english and not trying to rule lawyer anythig you come to "only target that creature = single target".

Using plain english they could have easily said " any spell that has only the creature as a target" but they did not. They used "must target only that creature".

The number of targets is the key. Eldritch Blast (5th ECL and up), Fireball, Scorching Ray, and a Hold Person Cast out of a 3rd or higher slot (you ran out of 2nd level slots already) do not work because they are all multitargeted Spells at heir base.

Now the devs may come out and say " any spell as long as you only target the provoking creature" which wouldn't surprise me as their rulings have been all over the place from time to time and Magic gets a huuuuge benefit of the doubt (look at Eldritch Blast invocations). But until they do, EB starting at 5th level or higher can't be used via warcaster as it is simple a multitargeted spell.

Wow, that sounds very intelligent.

[GiantOctopodes]

So, it's well documented that I don't care whatsoever about the Dev's off the cuff twitter rulings. Yet, one of the fundamental principles of debate is that you don't argue with what you find convincing, you argue with what your opponent finds convincing. So, as it relates to Eldritch Blast"

"@JeremyECrawford Eldritch Blast: are the attacks resolved in parallel or sequence? Do you have to pick all the targets first before rolling?"
"@JeremyECrawford 2h2 hours ago

Jeremy Crawford retweeted Jeremy Soard

Multiple attacks on the same turn aren't simultaneous, unless a feature or spell says otherwise. "

Which would mean two things:
1) Eldritch Blast is multiple attacks. Multiple attacks mean multiple hits, and as Repelling Blast states that it applies on a HIT, it would push a target 10' per hit, whether it is the same target or a different one.
2) You do not need to pick targets first before rolling, you follow the normal sequence of making attacks (pick a target, determine modifiers, make the attack) for each attack made, which in this case is one per beam.

Now, I could go off on all sorts of tangents about the verbiage between eldritch blast and whirlwind is identical, etc, but this isn't the place for that. Just thought people might want to know.

[Easy_Lee]

Eldritch blast has an instantaneous duration; the entire spell effects appear and disappear in the same instant, so every beam exists for the very same instant, making all the beams simultaneous.

You cannot shoot one beam, see how it turns out, then decide who to target based on that information. Nor can you shoot one beam, move, then shoot another. In order to do so, the spell would have to have a duration which was longer than instantaneous.

When casting this or any other instantaneous spell, using its normal casting time or by using your reaction due to the feat, you must choose your targets before resolving any of the beams. You might waste some. Tough.

That's not how duration: instantaneous works. Duration is how long the spell sticks around after being cast. Fireball is also instantaneous, even though it involves a pea of flame flying to a target not-instantaneously, exploding for a moment, then going away. Lightning bolt can be dodged, even though it's "instantaneous." Further, the PHB specifically says that you can move between attacks; eldritch blast being "instantaneous" does not negate that.

Eldritch blast takes the full duration of one action to cast. Your action is the bulk of your round, so it normally takes most of that time to cast.

[CNagy]

By RAW, you can use Warcaster with any spell that generates multiple attacks/can target multiple creatures so long as those attacks only target the creature that triggered Warcaster.

The difference between "one creature" and "that creature" is significant; they are two very different limitations. The first limits the types of spells you can use; you can only use spells that target a single creature. The second limits both the types of spells you can use and how you can use them; you can only use spells that target creatures (so AoE like Fireball is out) and you can only choose to target the creature that triggered Warcaster.

A duration of instantaneous merely means that the spell takes effect and resolves completely in the same action. Lightning Bolt has an instantaneous duration, yet the spell description makes it clear that it blasts out from you in the direction you choose, thus hitting targets closer to you before it hits targets further from you. That makes no real mechanical difference (until we start seeing creatures with the ability to react to someone else taking damage) but it shows that instantaneous is not meant to carry its dictionary definition.

So Eldritch Blast generates a beam. If you are higher level, it generates multiple beams. Whether you choose to target one creature with each beam or one creature with all of them, you resolve them one at a time because mechanically that's how this system works--everything falls into a queue, some things (reactions) get in line behind whatever they are reacting to, some things (reactions with specific timing) cut in front of or right into the middle of what they are reacting to, but it's all in a line. With Warcaster, you could use Eldritch Blast provided all beams target the same creature, because in doing so you have not violated the rules set out by Warcaster. And because they are individual attacks that get resolved in order, their damage and effects are sequential--hence each hit is a push when you have the appropriate invocation.

Edit: Lightning Bolt was the first spell to come to mind. Mechanically, all the damage dealt by it occurs at the same time (until something messes with that). But for narrative purposes, it clearly hits some creatures before others given its description.

[Yagyujubei]

Well, I'm sure that many DMs run it the other way. But from a rules perspective, Repelling Blast could easily have been worded as pushing the target back by 10-feet per beam. But it doesn't say, or mean, 10-feet per beam. It says that each beam moves you back 10-feet. Each beam hits you, simultaneously, when you are standing at point A. Each beam moves you back from the point where they hit you to a point 10-feet behind where you were when they hit you, point B. At no time did any beam hit you when you were standing at point B (to move you further back to point C), because every beam that hit, hit you when you were at point A.

Further, the game rules expressly point out (in chapter 10) that a spell's effect is not cumulative with itself, unless it says so. If it had said '10-feet per beam', then you'd be pushed back by 10-feet per beam that hit. But it doesn't make an exception. The spell has been modified to push you back if it, or any part of it, hits you. It is not cumulative with itself, in accordance with the general rules for magic, as well as the consequences of the spell being instantaneous.

yeah but nowhere does it say that all of the beams of an eldritch blast hit simultaneously or that you have to call who you are attacking before hand. this is you projecting your real world understanding of the word instantaneous into the rules, and would be DM fiat but certainly not RAW.

the only thing that the tag "instantaneous" on a spell means is that it cannot be dispelled since the effect is so short. nothing more, nothing less.

[Kryx]

GiantOctopodes' tweet to crawford and CNagy have it right.

Eldritch Blast allows for pausing between attacks, but no moving.
Eldritch Blast works w/ Warcaster as long as it only targets one creature.

[Easy_Lee]

GiantOctopodes' tweet to crawford and CNagy have it right.

Eldritch Blast allows for pausing between attacks, but no moving.
Eldritch Blast works w/ Warcaster as long as it only targets one creature.

The only time movement is not allowed between Eldritch Blasts is if it is used as a reaction attack per Warcaster. Absolutely nothing in the rules prevents movement, regardless of what any tweets say.

[CNagy]

The only time movement is not allowed between Eldritch Blasts is if it is used as a reaction attack per Warcaster. Absolutely nothing in the rules prevents movement, regardless of what any tweets say.

Moving Between Attacks, page 190 PHB, does specify that you may move between multiple weapon attacks given by the same action. If it were meant to apply to spell attacks too, it would just say "attacks" because there are only weapon attacks and spell attacks in the game.

[Easy_Lee]

Moving Between Attacks, page 190 PHB, does specify that you may move between multiple weapon attacks given by the same action. If it were meant to apply to spell attacks too, it would just say "attacks" because there are only weapon attacks and spell attacks in the game.

That's pretty nit-picky, but fair enough.

[Kryx]

That's pretty nit-picky, but fair enough.
It's not not picky at all. The attack type is explicitly called out.

[Easy_Lee]

It's not not picky at all. The attack type is explicitly called out.

Read: "I disagree with Easy_Lee, let me find one more excuse to say so."

Look, you can move between attacks. The fact that the book calls out weapon attacks is just one more thing to remember. It's hard to keep all of these things in your head, which is probably the reason why the developers keep forgetting their own rules. The game could be much simpler, and would be better for it.

[Kryx]

It was actually quite the opposite. I posted how the rules work, you said "THE RULES DON'T SAY THAT, STUPID". CNagy corrected you with quotes from the rules. You called him nitpicky. I said it's just the rules.

Like the hundreds of other threads by now it's quite apparent that you do not care about the rules or how the developers intended them. Therefore I really do not care to hear what you have to say. Please stop responding to me. You're harassing me at this point.

[MarkTriumphant]

Repelling blast applies to the spell as a whole, not to individual beams. Thus it moves a single target no more than 10 feet. That being said, you could move 4 targets 10 feet each.

Why would the Repelling Blast invocation work differently from the Agonising Blast invocation? The latter applies to each beam individually, and (as far as I can tell) so does the former.

[Ardantis]

right on, so far as I can tell.

[Easy_Lee]

Why would the Repelling Blast invocation work differently from the Agonising Blast invocation? The latter applies to each beam individually, and (as far as I can tell) so does the former.

As I recall, the argument was that RB applies only once per target because the beams all hit at once. However, the wording is just as clear as AB, and none seem keen to argue that AB only works once per casting. Assuming that RB can knock back multiple foes, and it apparently can, then there's no reason why it shouldn't knock one foe back more than once.

[Vogonjeltz]

Why would the Repelling Blast invocation work differently from the Agonising Blast invocation? The latter applies to each beam individually, and (as far as I can tell) so does the former.


As I recall, the argument was that RB applies only once per target because the beams all hit at once. However, the wording is just as clear as AB, and none seem keen to argue that AB only works once per casting. Assuming that RB can knock back multiple foes, and it apparently can, then there's no reason why it shouldn't knock one foe back more than once.

In a technical sense, they don't work on Eldritch Blast differently. However, one stacks the other won't, because of phrasing in the ability (they are phrased differently, which is important).

Agonizing Blast add charisma damage to each beam, Repelling Blast adds movement of the target to the spell.

Per the spell Eldritch Blast, all the beams are generated at the same time (it's an instantaneous spell).

Ergo, all the beams hit when the target is in their original location, so the maximum distance it's moved is up to 10 feet, per Repelling Blast. You could of course do less than that, but that's the maximum.

[CNagy]

In a technical sense, they don't work on Eldritch Blast differently. However, one stacks the other won't, because of phrasing in the ability (they are phrased differently, which is important).

Agonizing Blast add charisma damage to each beam, Repelling Blast adds movement of the target to the spell.

Per the spell Eldritch Blast, all the beams are generated at the same time (it's an instantaneous spell).

Ergo, all the beams hit when the target is in their original location, so the maximum distance it's moved is up to 10 feet, per Repelling Blast. You could of course do less than that, but that's the maximum.


Instantaneous as a duration only means that the magic doesn't stick around long enough to be a viable target for Dispel Magic--the idea that this means the beams are all generated at the same time and attack at the exact same time is something you've added to the rules, it's not there naturally. The word simultaneous is used nowhere and attacks are resolved sequentially whether you target the same creature multiple times or multiple creatures.

[GiantOctopodes]

In a technical sense, they don't work on Eldritch Blast differently. However, one stacks the other won't, because of phrasing in the ability (they are phrased differently, which is important).

Agonizing Blast add charisma damage to each beam, Repelling Blast adds movement of the target to the spell.

Per the spell Eldritch Blast, all the beams are generated at the same time (it's an instantaneous spell).

Ergo, all the beams hit when the target is in their original location, so the maximum distance it's moved is up to 10 feet, per Repelling Blast. You could of course do less than that, but that's the maximum.

Incorrect.

First, though they are indeed phrased differently, they have the same trigger.
"When you cast eldritch blast, add your Charisma modifier to the damage it deals on a hit."

Thus, you hit, you deal damage, you add your Charisma modifier.

"When you hit a creature with eldritch blast, you can push the creature up to 10 feet away from you in a straight line"

This still ties back to the structure of making an attack, go figure. When making an attack, you 1) determine the target, 2) apply modifiers, and 3) make the attack roll. The relevant part, the 3rd part, states the following: "You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage."

So you make the attack roll, you determine you have made a hit, you roll damage, and apply the rider effect which occurs on a hit (knocking the target back 10'). You then make the next attack that is part of the action of casting Eldritch Blast, which may be the same target or a different one. It does not matter if it is the same target, because it being a separate attack, it has a separate attack roll, and a separate possible hit. On that hit, you roll damage and apply any applicable rider effects, such as repelling blast. Up to 4 attacks, up to 4 possible hits, and up to 4 possible instances of repelling blast applying to the target(s).

As the attacks do not occur simultaneously (as was recently clarified, they do not occur simultaneously unless it is expressly stated that they do, which Eldritch Blast does not do, and more importantly as was expressly clarified For Eldritch Blast), and as the rider effects occur during the resolution of one attack before proceeding with the next, they absolutely do not strike the target in the same square, unless of course you have chosen not to knock the target back with an earlier hit or a wall or other obstacle prevents the creature's forced movement.

[Vogonjeltz]

Instantaneous as a duration only means that the magic doesn't stick around long enough to be a viable target for Dispel Magic--the idea that this means the beams are all generated at the same time and attack at the exact same time is something you've added to the rules, it's not there naturally. The word simultaneous is used nowhere and attacks are resolved sequentially whether you target the same creature multiple times or multiple creatures.

To the contrary, I'm just reading the spell for what it is. Instead of generating one beam, it generates two, or three, or four. The timing is still the same...all at once.


Incorrect.

First, though they are indeed phrased differently, they have the same trigger.
"When you cast eldritch blast, add your Charisma modifier to the damage it deals on a hit."

Thus, you hit, you deal damage, you add your Charisma modifier.

"When you hit a creature with eldritch blast, you can push the creature up to 10 feet away from you in a straight line"

This still ties back to the structure of making an attack, go figure. When making an attack, you 1) determine the target, 2) apply modifiers, and 3) make the attack roll. The relevant part, the 3rd part, states the following: "You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage."

So you make the attack roll, you determine you have made a hit, you roll damage, and apply the rider effect which occurs on a hit (knocking the target back 10'). You then make the next attack that is part of the action of casting Eldritch Blast, which may be the same target or a different one. It does not matter if it is the same target, because it being a separate attack, it has a separate attack roll, and a separate possible hit. On that hit, you roll damage and apply any applicable rider effects, such as repelling blast. Up to 4 attacks, up to 4 possible hits, and up to 4 possible instances of repelling blast applying to the target(s).

As the attacks do not occur simultaneously (as was recently clarified, they do not occur simultaneously unless it is expressly stated that they do, which Eldritch Blast does not do, and more importantly as was expressly clarified For Eldritch Blast), and as the rider effects occur during the resolution of one attack before proceeding with the next, they absolutely do not strike the target in the same square, unless of course you have chosen not to knock the target back with an earlier hit or a wall or other obstacle prevents the creature's forced movement.

The hits all happen at the same time as all the beams are generated at the same time (when Eldritch Blast is cast). Therefore the target is in it's original location when all the beams hit.

The attacks happen at the same time, because the spell generates them at the same time (there's no timing difference given!)

You're misrepresenting the tweet by Crawford, it only provides a guideline on determining the simultaneity of attacks. Eldritch Blast says that the spell creates multiple beams at higher levels, that's definitively simultaneous, which renders moving the target further than 10 feet impossible.

[GiantOctopodes]

To the contrary, I'm just reading the spell for what it is. Instead of generating one beam, it generates two, or three, or four. The timing is still the same...all at once.



The hits all happen at the same time as all the beams are generated at the same time (when Eldritch Blast is cast). Therefore the target is in it's original location when all the beams hit.

The attacks happen at the same time, because the spell generates them at the same time (there's no timing difference given!)

You're misrepresenting the tweet by Crawford, it only provides a guideline on determining the simultaneity of attacks. Eldritch Blast says that the spell creates multiple beams at higher levels, that's definitively simultaneous, which renders moving the target further than 10 feet impossible.

You're misrepresenting the tweet by Crawford, it provided an answer to "do the attacks from Eldritch Blast occur simultaneously", and the answer was not yes. Eldritch Blast does not say that it is simultaneous. That word does not appear anywhere in the description of what Eldritch Blast does. Therefore, per that guideline, it is not. It's part of one action, but one action does not equal simultaneous, never has, such is not stated in any way in any part of the rules.

[CNagy]

To the contrary, I'm just reading the spell for what it is. Instead of generating one beam, it generates two, or three, or four. The timing is still the same...all at once.

The effects of a spell are only simultaneous if the spell explicitly says they are simultaneous. Chain Lightning has an instantaneous duration, yet the chain does not occur at the same time as the lightning. Compare that to Magic Missile, which specifically states that the darts all strike simultaneously. Instantaneous duration only has one significant game effect (not subject to Dispel Magic).

[Arial Black]

Instantaneous as a duration only means that the magic doesn't stick around long enough to be a viable target for Dispel Magic.

...and that also means that the magic doesn't stick around long enough to see how one beam turns out before choosing the next target.

[Arial Black]

The effects of a spell are only simultaneous if the spell explicitly says they are simultaneous. Chain Lightning has an instantaneous duration, yet the chain does not occur at the same time as the lightning. Compare that to Magic Missile, which specifically states that the darts all strike simultaneously. Instantaneous duration only has one significant game effect (not subject to Dispel Magic).

There are some obvious rule changes in each edition. For example, 'caster level' is now no longer a factor in calculating the effects of spells. In earlier editions, ranges were 'x per caster level', duration was '10 minutes per caster level', and so forth.

The fireball spell (along with many others) did damage according to its caster level: 1d6 per caster level.

5E has taken 'caster level' out of the equation. Spell range, duration and so on have nothing to do with caster level. Instead, 5E uses spell level, and the level of the slot used to cast the spell. So in 5E, fireball does a flat 8d6 damage, irrespective of caster level. But if you cast in with a higher level slot, it does more damage.

Okay, so the game mechanics have been altered across the magic system. However, what has not changed is the concept of a fireball, instantaneously exploding for area of effect damage! The fluff might be that a pea-sized spark shoots from the caster to a point he chooses, which then bursts into flame, but the 'instantaneous' part means exactly the same in 5E as it did in earlier editions. 'Instantaneous' might not have the literal meaning, but we know that it means 'such a short span of time that no-one can do anything about it', including dispelling it, or seeing how some of it works out before deciding how to use the rest.

Both eldritch blast and scorching ray are held up as 5E examples of instantaneous spells with more than one attack where each attack requires its own attack roll. I have asserted that one of the consequences of its instantaneous duration is that all of the attacks are simultaneous. Others have asserted that the only game effect of 'instantaneous'is that it cannot be dispelled, and that an 'instant' is long enough to shoot one beam, see if the target dies, then decide who to target next, four times sequentially.

But we do know this: scorching ray is exactly the same conceptually as it ever was. So, was the concept always 'shoot a load of rays one-at-a-time, seeing how each turns out before choosing the next target (like arrows from a bow)'? Or was the concept always 'Three (or however many) rays spring from you simultaneously, aimed at the targets you chose for each at the moment the spell is cast'?

No point speculating, this is the answer:-


You blast your enemies with fiery rays. You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels beyong 3rd (to a maximum of three rays at 11th level). Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage.

The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all bolts must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously.

The concept has not changed. What has changed is that 3.5 spelled every single thing out each time, whereas 5E uses fewer words and hopes that we are smart enough to know the consequences of a spell being instantaneous.

[Citan]

Both eldritch blast and scorching ray are held up as 5E examples of instantaneous spells with more than one attack where each attack requires its own attack roll. I have asserted that one of the consequences of its instantaneous duration is that all of the attacks are simultaneous. Others have asserted that the only game effect of 'instantaneous'is that it cannot be dispelled, and that an 'instant' is long enough to shoot one beam, see if the target dies, then decide who to target next, four times sequentially.

But we do know this: scorching ray is exactly the same conceptually as it ever was. So, was the concept always 'shoot a load of rays one-at-a-time, seeing how each turns out before choosing the next target (like arrows from a bow)'? Or was the concept always 'Three (or however many) rays spring from you simultaneously, aimed at the targets you chose for each at the moment the spell is cast'?

The concept has not changed. What has changed is that 3.5 spelled every single thing out each time, whereas 5E uses fewer words and hopes that we are smart enough to know the consequences of a spell being instantaneous.
I agree on the fact that it implies, contrarily to certains's opinions, that 1. You have to choose all targets for all beams at once and 2. You can't move between beams.
However, on the point of Repelling Blast effect...


The hits all happen at the same time as all the beams are generated at the same time (when Eldritch Blast is cast). Therefore the target is in it's original location when all the beams hit.

The attacks happen at the same time, because the spell generates them at the same time (there's no timing difference given!)

You're misrepresenting the tweet by Crawford, it only provides a guideline on determining the simultaneity of attacks. Eldritch Blast says that the spell creates multiple beams at higher levels, that's definitively simultaneous, which renders moving the target further than 10 feet impossible.
Even if you considered that all beams hit target when it's at its "original" location, there is no reason to conclude that because of that "it can be repelled only 10 feet max". Why?

Repelling blast says "10 feet repelled on hit". This so suggests that each beam conveys a kind of force strong enough to overcome target's capability to stand.
If 4 beams having the same force collide at the same time, it is natural to consider then that the actual force applied to the target is the cumulation of the force of each beam, so is far greater than the quantity necessary to repel 10 feet.
So it's fairly reasonable to consider that the target creature, if hit by all beams, should be all means be repelled much further than if it was hit by only one beam.
In fact, it's even more reasonable than if we considered the beams to act one at a time. ^^

So, thanks for providing an interpretation that enforces the RAW. :smallsmile:

With that said, as a DM I would very probably house-rule some limitations when EB targets Huge or very resilient creatures, like having them roll a saving throw to limit the repel, or limiting "additional" repel to 5 feet each. Because, from the get-go, I don't find either logical nor balanced to repel an Ancient Gold Dragon as efficiently as I would a camel. :)

[GiantOctopodes]

I agree on the fact that it implies, contrarily to certains's opinions, that 1. You have to choose all targets for all beams at once and 2. You can't move between beams.
However, on the point of Repelling Blast effect...


In terms of that, look at Scorching Ray, which states directly that you "Make a ranged spell attack for each ray." Are we able to agree that the act of choosing a target is part of an attack? The first part, specifically. So, if you're making a separate attack for each ray, going through that processs in sequence, why on earth would you begin the process of attack #2 and 3 before completing the first? What in the rules leads you to believe that is required? Conversely, look at Magic Missile, which states "The darts all strike simultaneously", directly and clearly stating that such an event occurs. The clarification was simply that if it doesn't *say* it's simultaneous, it's not, which makes all the sense in the world. Magic Missile says it's simultaneous. Scorching Ray, Eldritch Blast, they do not. Thus, they aren't. So I'll have to disagree with #1, that violates the RAW in terms of the structure of making an attack. However, #2 you are certainly correct for, but not for the reason you might think, as you can only move between weapon attacks, not spell attacks.

[Arial Black]

I agree on the fact that it implies, contrarily to certains's opinions, that 1. You have to choose all targets for all beams at once and 2. You can't move between beams.
However, on the point of Repelling Blast effect...

Even if you considered that all beams hit target when it's at its "original" location, there is no reason to conclude that because of that "it can be repelled only 10 feet max". Why?

Repelling blast says "10 feet repelled on hit". This so suggests that each beam conveys a kind of force strong enough to overcome target's capability to stand.
If 4 beams having the same force collide at the same time, it is natural to consider then that the actual force applied to the target is the cumulation of the force of each beam, so is far greater than the quantity necessary to repel 10 feet.
So it's fairly reasonable to consider that the target creature, if hit by all beams, should be all means be repelled much further than if it was hit by only one beam.
In fact, it's even more reasonable than if we considered the beams to act one at a time. ^^

So, thanks for providing an interpretation that enforces the RAW. :smallsmile:

With that said, as a DM I would very probably house-rule some limitations when EB targets Huge or very resilient creatures, like having them roll a saving throw to limit the repel, or limiting "additional" repel to 5 feet each. Because, from the get-go, I don't find either logical nor balanced to repel an Ancient Gold Dragon as efficiently as I would a camel. :)

Every time you use real world physics to understand how D&D spells work, a catgirl dies. : (

If Repelling Blast said 10 feet per beam, then it would. Without that, it doesn't.

Why? Two things: first, spells do exactly what it says on the tin. If it says it pushes you back 10 feet, then it's not about how much force was applied. If that was the case, then heavier creatures would be moved less or not at all. No, it does what it says, which is that it moves you from the point where it hits you (point A) to a point 10 feet behind that (point B). All the beams which hit, do so when you at point A. All of the beams do what they say they do, which is move you 10 feet behind point A.

Second, the general spellcasting rules found in that chapter says that spells do not stack with themselves.

[Citan]

In terms of that, look at Scorching Ray, which states directly that you "Make a ranged spell attack for each ray." Are we able to agree that the act of choosing a target is part of an attack? The first part, specifically. So, if you're making a separate attack for each ray, going through that processs in sequence, why on earth would you begin the process of attack #2 and 3 before completing the first? What in the rules leads you to believe that is required? Conversely, look at Magic Missile, which states "The darts all strike simultaneously", directly and clearly stating that such an event occurs. The clarification was simply that if it doesn't *say* it's simultaneous, it's not, which makes all the sense in the world. Magic Missile says it's simultaneous. Scorching Ray, Eldritch Blast, they do not. Thus, they aren't. So I'll have to disagree with #1, that violates the RAW in terms of the structure of making an attack. However, #2 you are certainly correct for, but not for the reason you might think, as you can only move between weapon attacks, not spell attacks.

I never said I considered moving between spell attacks allowed. This is a blatant violation of rules, so no discussion here.
Regarding the choice of attacks, it's really a matter of taste imo since nothing really sets a clear interpretation. I'm sorry I wrote it like it was a clear ruling, my mistake.
I personally prefer considering that you choose how to distribute targets before casting, instead of choosing one at a time, especially because it's a single spell, labeled instantaneous which suggests a very short span of time between beginning of casting and resolution. So I find it more natural, when considering a timespan of less than 6 seconds, that the caster decides on all targets before casting. On a practical side, it's much better for DM and other players too. :)
But I agree that by RAW the other approach is more consistent with the ruling made on invocations as well as spell writing.

Every time you use real world physics to understand how D&D spells work, a catgirl dies. : (

If Repelling Blast said 10 feet per beam, then it would. Without that, it doesn't.

Why? Two things: first, spells do exactly what it says on the tin. If it says it pushes you back 10 feet, then it's not about how much force was applied. If that was the case, then heavier creatures would be moved less or not at all. No, it does what it says, which is that it moves you from the point where it hits you (point A) to a point 10 feet behind that (point B). All the beams which hit, do so when you at point A. All of the beams do what they say they do, which is move you 10 feet behind point A.

Second, the general spellcasting rules found in that chapter says that spells do not stack with themselves.
Well, NO.
WoTC ruled out that Agonizing Blast applies on each (successful obviously) beam.
Description of invocation says "on hit".
SO, by RAW, there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER to treat any differently Repelling Blast because it's also "on hit". When WoTC uses the exact same expressions, it's intended for use to interpret them in the same way.
By RAW, 4 successful beams = 4*10 feet pushed. Clear as crystal water.

And here we're not talking about stacking a spell on another spell. We are talking about the successive resolution of multiple parts/effects of a single spell. So your reference is out of place.

The real question is, is it RAI? My comment was pinpointing that it could be RAI because it was explainable by reference with real physics rules.
If you say "no reference to real-world" then there is obviously nothing to discuss since the RAW is then golden.

Also, still on the question of RAI, would allowing several repels be game-breaking?
Seriously, as long as players and DM agree on this from the get-go, there is no problem. There are not so many cases where it would really break the game. DM can either facilitate creative uses or, if he feels players rely too much on it, create encouters where space configuration severely hampers repelling based tactics.

[GiantOctopodes]

I never said I considered moving between spell attacks allowed. This is a blatant violation of rules, so no discussion here.
Regarding the choice of attacks, it's really a matter of taste imo since nothing really sets a clear interpretation. I personally prefer considering that you choose how to distribute targets before casting, instead of choosing one at a time, especially because it's a single spell, labeled instantaneous which suggests a very short span of time between beginning of casting and resolution. So I find it more natural, when considering a timespan of less than 6 seconds, that the caster decides on all targets before casting. On a practical side, it's much better for DM and other players too. :)
But I agree that by RAW the other approach is at least as defendable, maybe more.


I know, I was agreeing with you that moving between spell attacks is indeed not allowed, I was just clarifying for any 3rd parties that may be paying attention *why* you can't move between the multiple attacks of Eldritch Blast.

Would you make Fighters choose the targets of all of their attacks before they begin making them? It's directly comparable in every way, it's one action resulting in multiple attacks, up to 4 strikes taking place within the span of an action. Why allow the Fighter's first attack to resolve before he moves onto the next, but not the Warlock's? Sure, I get that in the theater of your mind, you imagine the targets being chosen as they begin casting the spell, kinda "locking on" to all targets then letting loose like Iron Man or something. But is it fair to add a mechanical restriction to a class which is not present in RAW based on how you imagine their abilities to take place, when other interpretations are possible? I imagine the spell energy building up in a Warlock, then him gesturing towards an opponent while speaking a word of release, letting loose a beam. He gestures towards the same or a different target and speaks the word again, and another beam is loosed, as the process is repeated up to 4 times. Such an interpretation is still consistent with RAW, is it not? So why limit player's imaginations to how You imagine it, rather than letting their imagination come up with whatever seems coolest to them, as long as it fits within the rules as written?

[coredump]

. Absolutely nothing in the rules prevents movement, regardless of what any tweets say.


Read: "I disagree with Easy_Lee, let me find one more excuse to say so."

Look, you can move between attacks. The fact that the book calls out weapon attacks is just one more thing to remember. It's hard to keep all of these things in your head, which is probably the reason why the developers keep forgetting their own rules. The game could be much simpler, and would be better for it.

Read "Easy_Lee will ignore any rule that he doesn't like"

The rule is pretty specific, just because you want the game to work a different way doesn't change what is in the rules.

The Dev tweets *agree* with what is written in the book, and again disagree with your assertion.

I find it ironic that you are all about ignoring the Dev tweets for the all important "RAW"... and then you are all about ignoring the RAW when it doesn't say what you want it to say.


As such, your slur on the 'developers' is misplaced. The developer not only remembers and agrees with 'their own rules', but *you* are the one getting the rules wrong.




Repelling blast applies to the spell as a whole, not to individual beams. Thus it moves a single target no more than 10 feet. That being said, you could move 4 targets 10 feet each.

*although Eldritch blast would be ineligible to target multiple creatures, so it's pretty worthless with war caster.

You will want to check the latest Tweets from JC. The first beam can move you out of range of the second beam. So they are hitting, and resolving, in series.

[Easy_Lee]

Read "Easy_Lee will ignore any rule that he doesn't like"

The rule is pretty specific, just because you want the game to work a different way doesn't change what is in the rules.

The Dev tweets *agree* with what is written in the book, and again disagree with your assertion.

I find it ironic that you are all about ignoring the Dev tweets for the all important "RAW"... and then you are all about ignoring the RAW when it doesn't say what you want it to say.


As such, your slur on the 'developers' is misplaced. The developer not only remembers and agrees with 'their own rules', but *you* are the one getting the rules wrong.

In fact, you're completely wrong. Nothing in the book prevents movement between hits of a spell. We have a specific rule which says one can move between weapon attacks, but no paragraph stating one cannot move between spell attacks. Thus it's left for us to use other passages in the books to try to guess. For example, stating that all attacks made by a spell hit at the same time, therefore movement is not allowed, would be a guess. Using a twitter post, since those are rulings and not considered RAW (and sometimes disagree with other dev tweets) would also be a guess.

I am unsure why you are so eager to insult me. If you don't like me, or don't like my posts, please just send me a message and say so.

[GiantOctopodes]

In fact, you're completely wrong. Nothing in the book prevents movement between hits of a spell. We have a specific rule which says one can move between weapon attacks, but no paragraph stating one cannot move between spell attacks. Thus it's left for us to use other passages in the books to try to guess. For example, stating that all attacks made by a spell hit at the same time, therefore movement is not allowed, would be a guess. Using a twitter post, since those are rulings and not considered RAW (and sometimes disagree with other dev tweets) would also be a guess.


I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. Nothing in the rules disallows using your movement during your reaction, either, but nor does anything permit it. It's a strong argument to state that the rules explicitly allow something to occur or define it in that way, such as with Whirlwind containing multiple attacks or Eldritch Blast's attacks resolving sequentially. However, arguing that the rules do not disallow something is not imho a strong argument. Your DM may allow that action to occur, in those instances, but the rules do not. Of course, the same is true of sticking your hand in someone's mouth to prevent them from speaking or casting spells. Nothing in the rules allows or disallows it, it's entirely up to DM adjudication, but whereas a DM who forces you to pick all targets for Eldritch Blast up front is changing the rules, a DM who disallows you sticking your hand in someone's mouth is not. The same is true of moving between spell attacks. Put another way, a reasonable person could disagree, and both would have equal support for their position (and by that I mean none).

[coredump]

In fact, you're completely wrong. Nothing in the book prevents movement between hits of a spell. We have a specific rule which says one can move between weapon attacks, but no paragraph stating one cannot move between spell attacks.
"completely wrong"? Okay, lets see...
We have a rule saying you can move and take an action. That rule gives no permission to break up the move or the action in any way. (p. 189)
We have a rule saying you can break up your move, to allow moving before the action and after the action. Again, no permission to break up the action or to move during the action. (p.190)
We then have a rule that allows movement during an action that includes more than 1 Weapon Attack (p.190)

That pretty much covers all of the permissions given. Now, it is technically true, that all of those rules might be extremely redundant and superfluous, and they *really* meant that you can move whenever you want. Of course, they may also have meant that you can move on other peoples turn and shoot lasers out of your eyes. But the rules seem pretty clear, and pretty explicit on when you can move during your turn. But who knows.. .maybe I am 'completely wrong'.


. Using a twitter post, since those are rulings and not considered RAW (and sometimes disagree with other dev tweets) would also be a guess. I view those tweets as a reference to explain what the RAW is. Just like using a dictionary to help with a words meaning.


I am unsure why you are so eager to insult me. If you don't like me, or don't like my posts, please just send me a message and say so. If I don't like a post, I respond to the post. Please stop trying to play the victim.

[LordVonDerp]

Repelling blast applies to the spell as a whole, not to individual beams. Thus it moves a single target no more than 10 feet. That being said, you could move 4 targets 10 feet each.

*although Eldritch blast would be ineligible to target multiple creatures, so it's pretty worthless with war caster.

By raw repelling blast causes the target to pushed back ten feet when it gets hit by an eldritch blast, every time it gets hit by an eldritch blast, and whenever it gets hit by an eldritch blast. If it gets hit by four blasts at once it gets pushed back 10 feet four times for a total of 40 ft.

[LordVonDerp]

The Dev tweets *agree* with what is written in the book, and again disagree with your assertion.


As such, your slur on the 'developers' is misplaced. The developer not only remembers and agrees with 'their own rules', but *you* are the one getting the rules wrong.


In fact, the devs have a well established history of doing quite the opposite.

[Vogonjeltz]

You're misrepresenting the tweet by Crawford, it provided an answer to "do the attacks from Eldritch Blast occur simultaneously", and the answer was not yes. Eldritch Blast does not say that it is simultaneous. That word does not appear anywhere in the description of what Eldritch Blast does. Therefore, per that guideline, it is not. It's part of one action, but one action does not equal simultaneous, never has, such is not stated in any way in any part of the rules.

Hardly. The question was specific to Eldritch Blast, but his answer was general (and thus broadly applicable). He told the questioner that a spell or effect needs to indicate that the multiple attacks occur simultaneously for multiple attacks to occur simultaneously, otherwise they occur consecutively.

Well, Eldritch Blast says all the beams are generated on casting, they aren't charges held for later use, they're done immediately. This means they needs must be simultaneous.

I'm not saying that they are simultaneous by virtue of being one action, I'm saying they are simultaneous because the spell specifically says the beams are generated at the time of casting. There's only one casting, so they are all generated at the exact same time.


The effects of a spell are only simultaneous if the spell explicitly says they are simultaneous. Chain Lightning has an instantaneous duration, yet the chain does not occur at the same time as the lightning. Compare that to Magic Missile, which specifically states that the darts all strike simultaneously. Instantaneous duration only has one significant game effect (not subject to Dispel Magic).

Yes, I know what Crawford said. The spell says the effects (each beam) are generated when the spell is cast. That makes them simultaneous. It's worth noting, he wasn't talking about Magic Missile because it doesn't actually make attacks, it's just an auto-hit spell.


Even if you considered that all beams hit target when it's at its "original" location, there is no reason to conclude that because of that "it can be repelled only 10 feet max". Why?

Repelling blast says "10 feet repelled on hit". This so suggests that each beam conveys a kind of force strong enough to overcome target's capability to stand.
If 4 beams having the same force collide at the same time, it is natural to consider then that the actual force applied to the target is the cumulation of the force of each beam, so is far greater than the quantity necessary to repel 10 feet.
So it's fairly reasonable to consider that the target creature, if hit by all beams, should be all means be repelled much further than if it was hit by only one beam.
In fact, it's even more reasonable than if we considered the beams to act one at a time. ^^

So, thanks for providing an interpretation that enforces the RAW.

With that said, as a DM I would very probably house-rule some limitations when EB targets Huge or very resilient creatures, like having them roll a saving throw to limit the repel, or limiting "additional" repel to 5 feet each. Because, from the get-go, I don't find either logical nor balanced to repel an Ancient Gold Dragon as efficiently as I would a camel. :)

Yes, but it's 10 feet max, if they moved 11+ feet that would violate the up to 10 feet clause.

I'd be perfectly fine with the effect stacking if it said: For every beam from eldritch blast that hits a creature, you may push that creature up to 10 feet away from you in a straight line.

That is nearly identical to the actual text, except it is attributing the push effect to the individual beams instead of the spell as a whole.


You will want to check the latest Tweets from JC. The first beam can move you out of range of the second beam. So they are hitting, and resolving, in series.

Just spotted that. I'd say it indicates the phrasing of repelling blast and/or eldritch blast requires a rewrite so that it agrees with the intent given by Crawford's tweet.


In fact, you're completely wrong. Nothing in the book prevents movement between hits of a spell. We have a specific rule which says one can move between weapon attacks, but no paragraph stating one cannot move between spell attacks. Thus it's left for us to use other passages in the books to try to guess. For example, stating that all attacks made by a spell hit at the same time, therefore movement is not allowed, would be a guess. Using a twitter post, since those are rulings and not considered RAW (and sometimes disagree with other dev tweets) would also be a guess.

I am unsure why you are so eager to insult me. If you don't like me, or don't like my posts, please just send me a message and say so.

Well, actually there is the rule on when you can move.

PHB page 190, Breaking Up Your Move: "You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action."
The only exception given to the rule on only moving before or after the action (cast a spell) is the rule on actions involving weapon attacks.
Cast A Spell is an action, so it's not eligible for movement during.

[GiantOctopodes]

Hardly. The question was specific to Eldritch Blast, but his answer was general (and thus broadly applicable). He told the questioner that a spell or effect needs to indicate that the multiple attacks occur simultaneously for multiple attacks to occur simultaneously, otherwise they occur consecutively.

Well, Eldritch Blast says all the beams are generated on casting, they aren't charges held for later use, they're done immediately. This means they needs must be simultaneous.


No more than multiple arrows being fired within the span of an action are simultaneous.



I'm not saying that they are simultaneous by virtue of being one action, I'm saying they are simultaneous because the spell specifically says the beams are generated at the time of casting. There's only one casting, so they are all generated at the exact same time.


And the "time of casting" is one action, so yes, they are all generated "at the exact same time" in the sense that they are generated within one action, just like attacks made by a fighter are occurring "at the exact same time", which is to say, not at all. For anyone unfamiliar with the text of Eldritch Blast, it states "The spell creates more than one beam when you reach higher levels". It says nothing at all about the beams being created at the same time, much less simultaneously.




Yes, I know what Crawford said. The spell says the effects (each beam) are generated when the spell is cast. That makes them simultaneous. It's worth noting, he wasn't talking about Magic Missile because it doesn't actually make attacks, it's just an auto-hit spell.


Indeed, other than Magic Missile (which as stated, doesn't actually make attacks), not a single spell specifies that multiple attacks occur simultaneously. One would almost think that was because multiple attacks occurring simultaneously just wasn't a thing.



Yes, but it's 10 feet max, if they moved 11+ feet that would violate the up to 10 feet clause.


I'd be perfectly fine with the effect stacking if it said: For every beam from eldritch blast that hits a creature, you may push that creature up to 10 feet away from you in a straight line.


That is nearly identical to the actual text, except it is attributing the push effect to the individual beams instead of the spell as a whole.


It's 10 feet ON A HIT, the 3rd part of making an attack, which makes it 10' per attack. Not 10' per round. Think of it this way- if a Sorcerer with Eldritch Blast cast it normally, and then quickened, and then on the creature's turn it somehow provoked an opportunity attack from the sorcerer, obviously repelling blast would apply to all of those. Yet it's not 10' per round, or 10' per cast, or anything like that, it's 10' on a hit. How many times are you hitting them? Up to 4. And it does say that! It states "When you hit a creature with eldritch blast, you can push the creature up to 10 feet away from you in a straight line."

Beam 1- have you hit? Yes? You can push the creature up to 10' back.
Beam 2- have you hit? No? No push.
Beam 3- have you hit? Yes? You can push the creature up to 10' back.

There is no discrepancy between the phrasing and the ruling. It's all part of the structure of making an attack.

[LordVonDerp]

Every time you use real world physics to understand how D&D spells work, a catgirl dies. : (

If Repelling Blast said 10 feet per beam, then it would. Without that, it doesn't.

Why? Two things: first, spells do exactly what it says on the tin. If it says it pushes you back 10 feet, then it's not about how much force was applied. If that was the case, then heavier creatures would be moved less or not at all. No, it does what it says, which is that it moves you from the point where it hits you (point A) to a point 10 feet behind that (point B). All the beams which hit, do so when you at point A. All of the beams do what they say they do, which is move you 10 feet behind point A.

Second, the general spellcasting rules found in that chapter says that spells do not stack with themselves.

It says 10ft when the target is hit. If they get hit 4 times, then they get knocked back 10 feet 4 times for 40feet.

Also, every time you fail to apply real world physics to DnD, someone builds a peasent railgun.

[CNagy]

@JeremyECrawford If you get 3 attacks with eldritch blast, can the first attack push a target out of range of the next two attacks?
@JeremyECrawford 24 hours ago
Yes, Repelling Blast can push a target out of the range of subsequent beams from eldritch blast.

There. Yet another clear answer making it unnecessarily clearer that Eldritch Blast creates a number of beams that are resolved in sequence. You can tell by the word "subsequent."

Add that to the evidence that the only significance of the Instantaneous duration is the fact, mentioned specifically in the book, that such spells are not subject to Dispel Magic. There is no consequence, no drawback to having such a duration. No hidden penalty. No amount of referring to past editions of the game or trying to redefine terms already defined in the game is going to change what the above tweet in addition to all of the other tweets and, frankly, the RAW already makes abundantly clear.