Eldritch Blast

[Kajorma]

Okay, so Eldritch Blast does 1d0. If you get Agonizing Blast at level 2 you get to add your Cha Bonus to it. (we'll say +4 at low level, +5 at higher)
Now, you cast Hex on a target. (By level 5, this is probably on all the time anyway)

Do you do (at level 2) 1d0 + 1d6 + 4 damage? That's an expected value of 13. Which isn't insane, but...
At level 5, you get 2 beams from the Cantrip.
So, assuming both hit your hexed target, is that 2d10+2d6+10? For a cantrip?
At level 17 it goes to 4 beams, which is a lot like the 4 attacks of the melee types, but each attack would do 1d10+1d6+5?

If you specced into it with other Invocations, it would also have a range of 300 feet, and knock the target back 10 feet.... per beam?

Am I reading that right?

[Mechaviking]

yes, you are because the forums don´t allow me to just type yes.

Since I already began there are ways to make it even better but that relies on clever multiclassing and such, if you really wanna know ping me again.

But yes the best cantrip in the game and you are correct.

[Yagyujubei]

you're reading it right sir, agonizing blast+hex is some of the best and most consistent at will damage in the edition currently.

consider juggling shenanigans with repelling blast or whatever it's called, you can attack from a very low angle (say as a gnome or halfling) and blast the enemy into the air to deal additional fall dmg on top of your normal attack damage, add to that action surge or quicken spell and you can get some silly nonsense going on.

potential for 8d10+8d6+40+8d6 fall damage at level 20 for 1 sorcery point (although it's debated as to whether or not you should be able to use quicken to cast two cantrips)

[Kajorma]

That's crazy.

I'm not playing a warlock at the moment, I was just browsing the rules.
I am gonna have to give that class a try some time.

And sure, I'm curious.
How would you mix that with a Sorc anything really?

[Demonic Spoon]

That's crazy.

I'm not playing a warlock at the moment, I was just browsing the rules.
I am gonna have to give that class a try some time.

And sure, I'm curious.
How would you mix that with a Sorc anything really?
Cantrips scale by character, not class, level. So, some people like to take 2 levels in warlock for EB + agonizing blast for good at-will damage for the entirety of their character's career.

Sorcerers can benefit from this further because they have a high CHA already, and can use Quicken Spell to fire off 2 EBs a round.

[Arial Black]

Repelling blast knocks you 10 feet behind the point where you were when it hits you. If you shoot multiple beams at the same target, because it's an instantaneous spell, all of the beams occur in the same instant, all that hit do so at the same time, and each beam moves you back to a point 10 feet behind that point, which is the same point for each beam. Therefore, they don't stack to push you 20, 30 or 40 feet.

Now, if Repelling Blast said it pushed you back 10 feet per beam that hit, then it would.

[Yagyujubei]

sorc/warlock is one of the most synergistic MC's in 5E in my opinion for a few reasons.

1. sorcery points work in tandem with warlock spell slots in a fantastic way that REALLY expands warlock casting. The reason being that sorc points don't reset until a long rest, whereas warlock slots reset upon short rest, this means you can store up sorc points for when you need them and since warlock spell slots scale up in level quickly, that means you'll be getting tons of sorc points from your slots.

2. on top of this, many of the spells you'll need to cast every fight will be lvl 1 (hex for instance) so you can store up sorc points at the start of the day and use them and your sorc slots for those spells, and use your higher level but very limited warlock slots to cast spells that scale better.

3. quicken spell to double cast eldritch blast is just so goddamn good. and the warlock capstone isnt. so it's not a big loss if you don't go pure warlock, and sorc will also get you access to draconic bloodline, essentially giving you the cloak of shadows invocation without actually wasting an invocation slot.

anyway, a 3-4 level investment in sorc as a warlock is really strong.

also in general, a 2 level dip in warlock is one of the most universally beneficial MC options in the game. you get a TON of bang for your buck in those two warlock levels.

edit@Arial black: that's debatable. if you use your ruling on repelling blast, that would mean that agonizing blast only applies your CHA damage once per casting as well.

[Ruslan]

You really want Warlock 3/Sorcerer 17.

You're still not missing out on the 9th level spell, and the 3rd Warlock level lets you burn 2 2nd level Warlock spells for Sorcery points. In fact, as Warlock 3/Sorcerer 17 you get more Sorcery points than a single-classed Sorcerer 20, isn't that crazy?

[Safety Sword]

As good as EB is, it's not worth delaying higher level spell progression so you can use a cantrip.

[Mechaviking]

Now, if Repelling Blast said it pushed you back 10 feet per beam that hit, then it would.

It says when you hit. So I´m inclined to say it´s per hit(but it´s ultimately not my choice but rather my dm´s)

A similar ability would be pushing attack for battlemaster, it has a similar wording to it when you hit with a creature with a weapon attack, theoretically a battle master could push a creature farther than repelling blast warlock. Another one would be Open hand monk ability that states when you hit a creature with one of the attacks granted by flurry of blows, although both allow a strength savingthrow.

They all say when you hit, Eldritch blast says that as you gain levels it creates more beams and it says that you make separate attack rolls for each beam.

Personally I don´t care if a level 17 character can knock someone back 40 feet with eldritch power, hope their arch enemy has helmed horrors at their beck and call :D

[Strill]

you're reading it right sir, agonizing blast+hex is some of the best and most consistent at will damage in the edition currently.

It's good, but it's certainly not the best. Martial classes can all do better, especially with a combat feat or two.

[Mechaviking]

It's good, but it's certainly not the best. Martial classes can all do better, especially with a combat feat or two.

Very true marksmanship and a longbow for a level 11 fighter outdamages a lot of things.

[Ruslan]

Very true marksmanship and a longbow for a level 11 fighter outdamages a lot of things.Show your work.

[Yagyujubei]

It's good, but it's certainly not the best. Martial classes can all do better, especially with a combat feat or two.

well thats why i said SOME of, not the end all best evah lol.

[ThermalSlapShot]

There was a tweet by JC (I think) that supported the invocations working on each hit of the EB and not just once.

One of those things they are working on.

[MeeposFire]

I like using this with fighter and rogue.

fighter(EK)8/warlock(2)/rogue10

This combo works well and has the bonus benefit of never feeling like you are totally missing something like many multiclass combos do (what I mean is that every level just improves what you do so you are not waiting an extra long time to get your extra attack/damage or your standard number of ASIs).

You start fighter 8 with EK. Most would probably go ranged fighter and use either a long bow, crossbow, or hand crossbow (the last one with the feat which has the added bonus of making your future EB usable in melee ranges) though it is possible to make this a melee build (requires crossbow expert then for max damage). The next 2 levels are warlock so that by 10th level you have your normal number of ASIs and you get a bonus action weapon attack after using a full powered EB attack.

At 11th level and above you take rogue levels to boost your weapon damage. SA works only once a round so one weapon attack is fine and you still get your EB attacks (of course without SA damage on it) so even if you miss it is not all or nothing. Rogue also helps your defenses and utility so I think it is a fine addition.

[Ardantis]

I like using this with fighter and rogue.

fighter(EK)8/warlock(2)/rogue10

This combo works well and has the bonus benefit of never feeling like you are totally missing something like many multiclass combos do (what I mean is that every level just improves what you do so you are not waiting an extra long time to get your extra attack/damage or your standard number of ASIs).

You start fighter 8 with EK. Most would probably go ranged fighter and use either a long bow, crossbow, or hand crossbow (the last one with the feat which has the added bonus of making your future EB usable in melee ranges) though it is possible to make this a melee build (requires crossbow expert then for max damage). The next 2 levels are warlock so that by 10th level you have your normal number of ASIs and you get a bonus action weapon attack after using a full powered EB attack.

At 11th level and above you take rogue levels to boost your weapon damage. SA works only once a round so one weapon attack is fine and you still get your EB attacks (of course without SA damage on it) so even if you miss it is not all or nothing. Rogue also helps your defenses and utility so I think it is a fine addition.

That build seems very strong. How do you generate SA reliably without Cunning Action?

[MeeposFire]

That build seems very strong. How do you generate SA reliably without Cunning Action?

Mostly by targeting enemies near allies is a standard.

Also realize that SA for this character is a sweet bonus but unlike a normal rogue if you miss out on SA for a turn you only lose some of your damage rather than nearly all of it. A rogue needs SA in order to deal normal damage. This guy gets essentially normal warlock damage and an extra weapon attack (with sharpshooter possibly if ranged) which is plenty of damage at will. Use your party for help with getting SA as much as possible and you should be doing even better damage.

[PoeticDwarf]

Okay, so Eldritch Blast does 1d0. If you get Agonizing Blast at level 2 you get to add your Cha Bonus to it. (we'll say +4 at low level, +5 at higher)
Now, you cast Hex on a target. (By level 5, this is probably on all the time anyway)

Do you do (at level 2) 1d0 + 1d6 + 4 damage? That's an expected value of 13. Which isn't insane, but...
At level 5, you get 2 beams from the Cantrip.
So, assuming both hit your hexed target, is that 2d10+2d6+10? For a cantrip?
At level 17 it goes to 4 beams, which is a lot like the 4 attacks of the melee types, but each attack would do 1d10+1d6+5?

If you specced into it with other Invocations, it would also have a range of 300 feet, and knock the target back 10 feet.... per beam?

Am I reading that right?

Yes it is, but only the warlock can do this, and the warlock doesn't have many more options than this.
A 10 warlock has 2 lv. 5 spell slots, and that's all.
A monk can do at lv. 17 4d10+20 with 1 ki point, a warlock with 1 spell slot 4d10+20+4d6. But a warlock can't do much else, a monk can do a stunning strike, and an open hand monk goes for a instand dead chance.

Believe me, it's balanced.

[PoeticDwarf]

I like using this with fighter and rogue.

fighter(EK)8/warlock(2)/rogue10

This combo works well and has the bonus benefit of never feeling like you are totally missing something like many multiclass combos do (what I mean is that every level just improves what you do so you are not waiting an extra long time to get your extra attack/damage or your standard number of ASIs).

You start fighter 8 with EK. Most would probably go ranged fighter and use either a long bow, crossbow, or hand crossbow (the last one with the feat which has the added bonus of making your future EB usable in melee ranges) though it is possible to make this a melee build (requires crossbow expert then for max damage). The next 2 levels are warlock so that by 10th level you have your normal number of ASIs and you get a bonus action weapon attack after using a full powered EB attack.

At 11th level and above you take rogue levels to boost your weapon damage. SA works only once a round so one weapon attack is fine and you still get your EB attacks (of course without SA damage on it) so even if you miss it is not all or nothing. Rogue also helps your defenses and utility so I think it is a fine addition.


But this isn't before lv. 20...

[SharkForce]

As good as EB is, it's not worth delaying higher level spell progression so you can use a cantrip.

depends what you are building your character around. if what you want is a sorcerer that can deal single-target damage, it is very much worthwhile to delay high level spell progression for a better cantrip. those 2-3 sorcerer levels will basically double your damage, give you some extra (low-level) spells and cantrips known, give you more daily uses of metamagic, and might even give you access to some other interesting abilities depending on what invocations and/or pact you choose.

that certainly isn't a trade without cost, but if your goal is to be a capable damage-dealer, it really isn't a bad investment.

[Hawkstar]

I like using this with fighter and rogue.

fighter(EK)8/warlock(2)/rogue10

Out of curiosity...
What does this build look like and how does it work at level 3? (Most campaign starts)
What does this build look like and how does it work at level 6? (Heroic Campaign starts)
What does this build look like and how does it work at level 9? (Name level)
What does this build look like and how does it work at level 13? (Paragon/Legendary play)
What does this build look like and how does it work at level 17? (High-level/epic play)

[coredump]

My House Rule: The damage boost from Agonizing Blast is capped by your Warlock Level.

This has virtually zero effect on a pure Warlock, but severely limits the War2 dips from other classes.



fighter(EK)8/warlock(2)/rogue10

Not bad.. and not very MAD, just needing Cha and Dex really




Out of curiosity...
What does this build look like and how does it work at level 3? (Most campaign starts)
What does this build look like and how does it work at level 6? (Heroic Campaign starts)
What does this build look like and how does it work at level 9? (Name level)
What does this build look like and how does it work at level 13? (Paragon/Legendary play)
What does this build look like and how does it work at level 17? (High-level/epic play)

Its not so much a 'combo' build as it is just working well together.

Lvl 3 & 6 it works just like any other EK with a finesse weapon. Probably a bit weaker since boosting Cha instead of Dex at 6 and 8.

Lvl 9 you can start doing the EB+Bonus attack combo, though the +Cha doesn't happen until 10th.

By 13th level you are getting 3D10+3D6+15 EB, and the bonus attack D8+3D6+5
Lvl 17 goes to 4D10+4D6+20 and the bonus D8+5D6+6

[Vogonjeltz]

If you specced into it with other Invocations, it would also have a range of 300 feet, and knock the target back 10 feet.... per beam?

No, it's 10 feet for each creature hit by Eldritch Blast (one casting, many beams). So at best, 10 feet for a single target.


It says when you hit. So I´m inclined to say it´s per hit(but it´s ultimately not my choice but rather my dm´s)

It says: "When you hit a creature with eldritch blast" which is not "When you hit a creature with a beam from eldritch blast". You only actually hit them once with the cantrip even if multiple beams land.

[burninatortrog]

It says: "When you hit a creature with eldritch blast" which is not "When you hit a creature with a beam from eldritch blast". You only actually hit them once with the cantrip even if multiple beams land.

This seems obtuse. The description of eldritch blast says "Make a separate attack roll for each beam." If you make two attack rolls, and both hit, that's two hits.

[MeeposFire]

But this isn't before lv. 20...


Out of curiosity...
What does this build look like and how does it work at level 3? (Most campaign starts)
What does this build look like and how does it work at level 6? (Heroic Campaign starts)
What does this build look like and how does it work at level 9? (Name level)
What does this build look like and how does it work at level 13? (Paragon/Legendary play)
What does this build look like and how does it work at level 17? (High-level/epic play)

Both of you are essentially asking the same question so I will respond to both.

This character is very effective levels 1-20. This is why I post it. Unlike most multiclass builds you see on this site this one I thought up to avoid the normal problems with so many multiclass combos such as full cha paladin/warlocks where it takes half the game to even get your basic abilities to work. THis build never has that problem so it is always fun and effective levels 1-20.

At levels 3-8 you are a standard EK type fighter with an emphasis on cha instead of int. This means you not likely to use spells that would want high int but most EKs do not use those type of spells anyway preferring buffs and the like (for example shield does not care about your int score). THis also gives the bonus of making you an effective party face which can be fun So long as you like fighters you should be fine levels 1-8.

At 9th level you are missing the indomitable ability that fighters get but instead you have a 1st level spell on a short rest and a few new cantrips to boost yourself. One of those would be EB which you can now use with your war magic ability to get some nice ranged damage when needed. At 10th level you get cha to damage so even better.

Personally I think 11th level is important since that is the level that most warrior classes get a boost in damage. At this point this character has access to war magic EB+cha to damage and sneak attack. Damage would be pretty good IMO.

13th level is more of the same just boosting damage and your utility from skills and the like.

At the highest levels your damage continues to increase and your ability to survive increases as well from abilities like evasion and uncanny dodge. Also remember that you always have at least as many ASIs as typical characters so you do not fall behind in that way either.

Some good feats to look into would be crossbow expert (allows you to use EB in melee and opens up hand crossbows at early levels before you use EB and heavy crossbows when you do use EB or allows you to be a melee user of EB), sharp shooter, and spell sniper.

This build is nice because you are always working at least as a standard fighter until level 9 which allows you to immediately start using the war magic trick which then improves as you gain levels. It is not a gimmicky need to start at a high level sort of build because if it was I would not like it or offer it up.

I hope that answers some of your concerns.

[Arial Black]

This seems obtuse. The description of eldritch blast says "Make a separate attack roll for each beam." If you make two attack rolls, and both hit, that's two hits.

Yep. Both hit you at the same time. Both move you 10 feet back from the point they hit you. Both move you back through the exact same 10 feet. They don't stack.

[GiantOctopodes]

It applies here as well, so posting here as well:

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.

Which means, yes, OP, you were correct in all ways. Since it is multiple discrete attacks, all effects that apply on an attack, or any part thereof (such as a hit) apply separately and individually to each attack, whether that's pushing a target back 10', getting 1d6 bonus damage from hex, applying your Cha modifier, or whatever else. Since it's a full 4 attacks off a single spell with a no-save push rider, and at will on top of it, yeah, it's one of the best spells in the game.

[Arial Black]

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

The duration being 'instantaneous' is the spell saying otherwise!

[Yagyujubei]

The duration being 'instantaneous' is the spell saying otherwise!

once again, no it isnt. instantaneous duration ONLY means that the spell cannot be dispelled.

if you want to bring real world logic into this then i ask you, a 3 round burst from an assault rifle surely would only last an instant between firing and reaching their target, but do the bullets hit simultaneously? no.

[Kryx]

Firstly: The tweet is correct. Arial is not.

I find the logic a bit weird. Mechanically you can wait until a beam hits and then change your next beam's target based on that information.
Though I guess it's no different then bows.

[Kane0]

Huh, i better tell my warlock he now uses a burst fire rifle EB rather than a shotgun.
He'd like to hear me say that, it might go to his head

[Sigreid]

Both of you are essentially asking the same question so I will respond to both.

This character is very effective levels 1-20. This is why I post it. Unlike most multiclass builds you see on this site this one I thought up to avoid the normal problems with so many multiclass combos such as full cha paladin/warlocks where it takes half the game to even get your basic abilities to work. THis build never has that problem so it is always fun and effective levels 1-20.



You could get a similar effect, but with fewer skills and no expertise by going EK 8/Warlock 12. Be STR/CHA instead of DEX/CHA and use a 2h weapon with the great weapon fighter feat, warcaster feat and crossbow master feat. For damage, you're basically trading sneak attack and rogue powers to get EB+Weapon (1d10 or 2d6)+5 (Life drinker)+5 (Strength) +10 (taking the -5 to hit). This assumes you start with a solid strength and charisma but heavy armor allows you to tank dexterity.

[Mechaviking]

You could get a similar effect, but with fewer skills and no expertise by going EK 8/Warlock 12. Be STR/CHA instead of DEX/CHA and use a 2h weapon with the great weapon fighter feat, warcaster feat and crossbow master feat. For damage, you're basically trading sneak attack and rogue powers to get EB+Weapon (1d10 or 2d6)+5 (Life drinker)+5 (Strength) +10 (taking the -5 to hit). This assumes you start with a solid strength and charisma but heavy armor allows you to tank dexterity.

Sounds about just as effective as the other build, but which is better extra five damage on a hit or a third attack with which to power attack with? But I guess it´s a game of pick and choose :D

[MeeposFire]

You could get a similar effect, but with fewer skills and no expertise by going EK 8/Warlock 12. Be STR/CHA instead of DEX/CHA and use a 2h weapon with the great weapon fighter feat, warcaster feat and crossbow master feat. For damage, you're basically trading sneak attack and rogue powers to get EB+Weapon (1d10 or 2d6)+5 (Life drinker)+5 (Strength) +10 (taking the -5 to hit). This assumes you start with a solid strength and charisma but heavy armor allows you to tank dexterity.

You also trade some defense (uncanny dodge and evasion) and force yourself to be melee only (unless you try to twist your DMs arm and say that you can apply warlocks weapon stuff to a magic ranged weapon but that will likely not fly in most groups).

Remember you can use sharpshooter with my build to get that +10 if you want it and use archery style to better offset the accuracy loss. Since I can choose to use long bows or heavy crossbows the damage from weapon base difference will be minimal and with sharpshooter effectively replacing great weapon fighting bonuses this really comes down to greater warlock casting and an always on weapon effect.

Do realize however that this build essentially creates a problem I wanted to avoid which is that it takes a long time to get what I want (cha bonus damage on a hit). I have to wait those 9 levels of warlock to get that which means the build does not a major piece until level 17. Granted it is not as bad as most builds since you DO get your second attack on time and have good ASI acquisition I just like how mine is never really waiting to get a crucial piece for an extended length of time and is always slowly improving.

Your build would be particularly nice if you wanted more casting power. Mine has some utility spells as an afterthought but yours could have some decent casting to go with warrior abilities.

[Sigreid]

You also trade some defense (uncanny dodge and evasion) and force yourself to be melee only (unless you try to twist your DMs arm and say that you can apply warlocks weapon stuff to a magic ranged weapon but that will likely not fly in most groups).

Remember you can use sharpshooter with my build to get that +10 if you want it and use archery style to better offset the accuracy loss. Since I can choose to use long bows or heavy crossbows the damage from weapon base difference will be minimal and with sharpshooter effectively replacing great weapon fighting bonuses this really comes down to greater warlock casting and an always on weapon effect.

Do realize however that this build essentially creates a problem I wanted to avoid which is that it takes a long time to get what I want (cha bonus damage on a hit). I have to wait those 9 levels of warlock to get that which means the build does not a major piece until level 17. Granted it is not as bad as most builds since you DO get your second attack on time and have good ASI acquisition I just like how mine is never really waiting to get a crucial piece for an extended length of time and is always slowly improving.

Your build would be particularly nice if you wanted more casting power. Mine has some utility spells as an afterthought but yours could have some decent casting to go with warrior abilities.

Fair points. It really boils down to what you want the character to be. When I came up with this build I was looking at a front line fighter for the party that was not limited to attacking melee range targets and via repelling blast exercised a bit more control over the battle field. If I use this build (and I might) I would go fighter 1 for heavy armor, con saves and archery fighting style, variant human for crossbow expert followed by warlock 4, then fighter 8 and finish out with warlock. Using this leveling scheme you would always be on par with your party but would be more dependent on your eldrich blast for a good several levels.

[coredump]

The duration being 'instantaneous' is the spell saying otherwise!You are making the same mistake the 'other side' was making. You are assuming that your interpretation is the only possible one.

Duration of "instantaneous" could potentially be the spell saying otherwise....but that is only one option.

As it is, Crawford as specifically and explicitly stated that *Eldritch Blast* attacks in sequence, not simultaneously..... so either back down or just come out and call JC a liar.

[Arial Black]

That's not what he said!

He didn't actually answer the question, he just seemed to. Tricky.

It's true that attacks are consecutive unless it says different; true, but unhelpful. It doesn't tell us if eldritch blast's duration is saying that it's not consecutive.

It's possible to give an answer to a question without actually answering it. For example, imagine we asked Crawford the (useful) question: if a spell has an instantaneous duration, how long is that.

There are many useful possible answers, but if his answer was: spells last for their duration, then this is true, but unhelpful.

[GiantOctopodes]

That's not what he said!

He didn't actually answer the question, he just seemed to. Tricky.

It's true that attacks are consecutive unless it says different; true, but unhelpful. It doesn't tell us if eldritch blast's duration is saying that it's not consecutive.

It's possible to give an answer to a question without actually answering it. For example, imagine we asked Crawford the (useful) question: if a spell has an instantaneous duration, how long is that.

There are many useful possible answers, but if his answer was: spells last for their duration, then this is true, but unhelpful.

Gotcha, so you are indeed accusing Jeremy Crawford of incompetence and saying that he did not actually answer the question that was asked. He was asked if the attacks (plural) of Eldritch Blast take place simultaneously, or in sequence. He was also asked specifically if targets must be picked before rolling. His response to that question was that multiple attacks on a turn are not simultaneous.

Once again- he was asked if the multiple attacks of Eldritch Blast are simultaneous. His answer was that no, multiple attacks are not simultaneous.

He answered the question.

Now, it is interesting to note that you think the dev's tweets are unhelpful. I will be sure to note that. By the way, if he had been asked how long an instantaneous duration was, I suspect the answer would be what the rules state on page 205, that it is less than a round, and cannot be dispelled.

[Arial Black]

Once again- he was asked if the multiple attacks of Eldritch Blast are simultaneous.

Yes, he was asked about eldritch blast.


His answer was that no, multiple attacks are not simultaneous.

His answer was, "Multiple attacks on the same turn aren't simultaneous, unless a feature or spell says otherwise." He did not say anything about eldritch blast, even though he was asked about it. He also did not say if the 'instantaneous' duration means that the 'spell is saying otherwise'. Because, logically, it is!


He answered the question.

He replied to the question, but didn't actually answer the question asked. His answer told us a general rule about the game, a rule I don't dispute. But although what he said was true, it was not useful because we still don't know if he thinks that an 'instant' is enough time to shoot some beams, see the results, think about the best options for the next target, four times in the same instant! He may very well be sane enough to realise that this would not be possible, therefore he may think that the 'instantaneous' duration is the spell saying the attacks must be simultaneous.

There is also the possibility that he intends the attacks to be resolved sequentially, but without the caster being able to know the results of one beam before choosing the target of the next, because neither character nor player knowledge of the status of the target is part of any of the three steps detailed in Making An Attack.


Now, it is interesting to note that you think the dev's tweets are unhelpful. I will be sure to note that. By the way, if he had been asked how long an instantaneous duration was, I suspect the answer would be what the rules state on page 205, that it is less than a round, and cannot be dispelled.

It has been suggested that the words 'instant' and 'instantaneous' don't mean the same thing to WotC that they do to the rest of the English-speaking world; that they don't refer to a span of time at all, but instead just mean 'undispellable'. So I looked at the 3.5 PHB (p176) to see what WotC thought the instantaneous duration meant.

"Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting. For example, a cure light wounds spell lasts only an instant, but the healing it bestows never runs out or goes away."

This description, held alongside the 5E description, shows that WotC do indeed mean a very short span of time, and the word itself certainly does not mean 'undispellable'. The fact that they can't be dispelled is simply a consequence of the magic coming and going so quickly that no-one can react fast enough to do anything about it. Like, dispelling or...changing your mind about targets!

[Theodoxus]

So wait, there's no debate that Agonizing Blast applies to each hit of Eldritch Blast, but there is debate that Repelling Blast doesn't?

The abilities are worded exactly the same:

When you hit, you...

As for simultaneous or not, if you're fighting 2 guys and have three blasts, you could target Bad Guy 1, hit and repel him 10 feet, then target Bad Guy 2, hit and repel him 10 feet, and go back to Bad Guy 1, hit and repel him an additional 10 feet.

If that makes logical sense because the attacks are discreet and finite, then hitting 1 guy for all 3 and pushing him back 30 feet makes just as much sense.


I'm curious about the wording on Repelling Blast. "Can" and "Up to" implies you don't have to apply the effect, and can choose the distance you want to push, with a maximum of 10 feet per hit.

[GiantOctopodes]

Yes, he was asked about eldritch blast.
There is also the possibility that he intends the attacks to be resolved sequentially, but without the caster being able to know the results of one beam before choosing the target of the next, because neither character nor player knowledge of the status of the target is part of any of the three steps detailed in Making An Attack.

Yes it is. It's part of the 3rd step, rolling damage. On a hit, you roll damage. YOU roll damage. So, unless you're now proposing that some kind of system wherein the DM has you roll damage for all attacks and just applies it where they actually hit, and further proposing that such a system is RAW, you absolutely know the results of the previous beam before choosing the target of the next.



It has been suggested that the words 'instant' and 'instantaneous' don't mean the same thing to WotC that they do to the rest of the English-speaking world; that they don't refer to a span of time at all, but instead just mean 'undispellable'. So I looked at the 3.5 PHB (p176) to see what WotC thought the instantaneous duration meant.

"Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting. For example, a cure light wounds spell lasts only an instant, but the healing it bestows never runs out or goes away."

This description, held alongside the 5E description, shows that WotC do indeed mean a very short span of time, and the word itself certainly does not mean 'undispellable'. The fact that they can't be dispelled is simply a consequence of the magic coming and going so quickly that no-one can react fast enough to do anything about it. Like, dispelling or...changing your mind about targets!

So let me provide you another quote from 3.5E: "The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks". 3.5 E was and is a completely different system, and the rules or conventions of that system simply do not apply to 5E. However, I will point out that you are incorrect about no one being able to react to the spell. In fact, that is exactly what Counterspell is for.

[Kane0]

I'm curious about the wording on Repelling Blast. "Can" and "Up to" implies you don't have to apply the effect, and can choose the distance you want to push, with a maximum of 10 feet per hit.

I would say so, going on the theatre of the mind approach. There might be occasions you wouldnt want to shove someone back some or all of the way, or times when they cant be moved the whole distance for some reason.

[Arial Black]

Yes it is. It's part of the 3rd step, rolling damage. On a hit, you roll damage. YOU roll damage. So, unless you're now proposing that some kind of system wherein the DM has you roll damage for all attacks and just applies it where they actually hit, and further proposing that such a system is RAW, you absolutely know the results of the previous beam before choosing the target of the next.

Oh, the player probably knows that he hit (although the DM may be concealing the fact that you hit an illusion but he doesn't want to give that knowledge away), but even if you know you rolled, say, 9 points of damage, you do not know if the target has resistance (or is immune to) that type of damage, nor do you know how many hit points the target had at the start of the encounter, nor do you know if that beam's damage was enough to kill it, unless the DM judges that you can perceive that information.

For instantaneous spells, there is no time to shoot one, see what happens, then decide who to target next. And Step 3 doesn't give you that knowledge, even if you know how much damage you rolled!


So let me provide you another quote from 3.5E: "The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks". 3.5 E was and is a completely different system, and the rules or conventions of that system simply do not apply to 5E. However, I will point out that you are incorrect about no one being able to react to the spell. In fact, that is exactly what Counterspell is for.

It does show that WotC know very well what the word 'instantaneous' means.

[Gnomes2169]

"Instantaneous" describes the duration of a spell's effects, not whether or not you can target as you go with the spell. To determine effects, we look at what it does to the target. For eldrich blast, it deals 1d10 force damage on a hit.

Stop.

That is eldrich blast's effect. Everything else is fluff text or method of delivery, and an "instantaneous" duration has nothing to do with it. Each beam is a method of delivery, which is decoupled from the duration of its effects, and nothing states that they go off simultaniously. Just like nothing states that the extra attack feature does not happen simultaneously, or the monk's flurry of blows doesn't happen simultaneously with its attack action. Since there is nothing that actually states that you cannot target different creatures or that you cannot target sequentially (as a martial character does with their extra attacks), you can perform both tasks with eldrich blast without penalty.

Your disconnect is just thinking that the spell's entire casting time, appearance and effect is tied to the duration timer, when it's really just the effect it does to a creature. If your interpretation were true, then there would be no physical display of anything for an instantaneous spell besides its effect, since everything about the spell would be over instantaneously, before anything could perceive it.

[Ardantis]

"Instantaneous" describes the duration of a spell's effects, not whether or not you can target as you go with the spell. To determine effects, we look at what it does to the target. For eldrich blast, it deals 1d10 force damage on a hit.

Stop.

That is eldrich blast's effect. Everything else is fluff text or method of delivery, and an "instantaneous" duration has nothing to do with it. Each beam is a method of delivery, which is decoupled from the duration of its effects, and nothing states that they go off simultaniously. Just like nothing states that the extra attack feature does not happen simultaneously, or the monk's flurry of blows doesn't happen simultaneously with its attack action. Since there is nothing that actually states that you cannot target different creatures or that you cannot target sequentially (as a martial character does with their extra attacks), you can perform both tasks with eldrich blast without penalty.

Your disconnect is just thinking that the spell's entire casting time, appearance and effect is tied to the duration timer, when it's really just the effect it does to a creature. If your interpretation were true, then there would be no physical display of anything for an instantaneous spell besides its effect, since everything about the spell would be over instantaneously, before anything could perceive it.

Owned. Also, I agree.

[Xetheral]

I like using this with fighter and rogue.

fighter(EK)8/warlock(2)/rogue10

This combo works well and has the bonus benefit of never feeling like you are totally missing something like many multiclass combos do (what I mean is that every level just improves what you do so you are not waiting an extra long time to get your extra attack/damage or your standard number of ASIs).

You start fighter 8 with EK. Most would probably go ranged fighter and use either a long bow, crossbow, or hand crossbow (the last one with the feat which has the added bonus of making your future EB usable in melee ranges) though it is possible to make this a melee build (requires crossbow expert then for max damage). The next 2 levels are warlock so that by 10th level you have your normal number of ASIs and you get a bonus action weapon attack after using a full powered EB attack.

At 11th level and above you take rogue levels to boost your weapon damage. SA works only once a round so one weapon attack is fine and you still get your EB attacks (of course without SA damage on it) so even if you miss it is not all or nothing. Rogue also helps your defenses and utility so I think it is a fine addition.

It's a good build. Consider dropping 3 (or 4) levels of rogue for 3 (or 4) levels of ranger. Horde Breaker synergizes incredibly well with War Magic, frequently giving you an additional sharpshooter attack and/or an extra chance to deal sneak attack damage.

Note though, that if an attack is eligible to add sneak attack damage for a mid-level rogue, you will rarely want to use Sharpshooter on the same attack... the potential base damage from sneak attack is high enough that the decrease in hit chance outweighs the extra damage. See the table in my signature if you're curious about the numbers.

[Arial Black]

The casting time is a different thing than its duration. The casting causes the spell (which takes an action), and the effect is the spell effect.

Every single thing mentioned in the spell effect takes place entirely within its duration. There is no spell outside that duration. The beams cannot appear before the spell starts, and they cannot remain after the spell ends. If the spell only lasts for an instant, then everything it does takes place too quickly for anyone to do anything about it.

[coredump]

Ariel I was willing to defend your position. But it takes a whole lot of willful denial to read Crawfords post as you are attempting. It just doesn't make sense.

[Arial Black]

@Coredump: if a specific question is asked, it doesn't guarantee that the answer given will pertain to the question.

For example, if the question was, "Does the Walther PPK fire its bullets one at a time or all at the same time?"

If the answer was something like, "The Walther PPK fires its bullets one at a time", great! You have a useful answer!

But if the answer to the Walther PPK question was given as, "Firearms fire their bullets one at a time, unless they are the kind that fires them all together", then the answer given (although true) doesn't tell you if the Walther PPK fires its bullets one at a time, or all together like a double-barrelled shotgun. The answer didn't resolve the question asked.

Crawford was asked about eldritch blast, and whether the beams were targeted sequentially or simultaneously. He didn't say! He just said that attacks are sequential, unless they aren't! This doesn't resolve the question! It doesn't tell us if eldritch blast, being instantaneous, must target the beams simultaneously (as logic would dictate) or sequentially (involving some unknown mechanism which allows casters to glimpse the future to alter the present).

I'm not on Twitter, but I'd try to ask him a question that would be hard to reply to ambiguously.

"Do spells which last an instant, and involve multiple attack rolls (such as eldritch blast or scorching ray) last long enough to shoot one beam, see if the target dies, then let us use that information to choose our next target, once for each ray, all in that instant?'

[Kane0]

For example, if the question was, "Does the Walther PPK fire its bullets one at a time or all at the same time?"

If the answer was something like, "The Walther PPK fires its bullets one at a time", great! You have a useful answer!


I believe his answer was "Bullets are shot one at a time, unless the tag or manual for a particular gun says they are shot all at once"

And Eldritch Blast doesn't.

But whatever. The game works fine either way, its a decision you can make with your group before you sit down to play.

[Arial Black]

I'm saying that when the spell says 'instantaneous' in the stat block under 'duration', that is saying that they cannot be sequential.

[MeeposFire]

It's a good build. Consider dropping 3 (or 4) levels of rogue for 3 (or 4) levels of ranger. Horde Breaker synergizes incredibly well with War Magic, frequently giving you an additional sharpshooter attack and/or an extra chance to deal sneak attack damage.

Note though, that if an attack is eligible to add sneak attack damage for a mid-level rogue, you will rarely want to use Sharpshooter on the same attack... the potential base damage from sneak attack is high enough that the decrease in hit chance outweighs the extra damage. See the table in my signature if you're curious about the numbers.

I had considered ranger but for me I like the defensive, ASIs, and skill benefits from rogue (also doesn't ranger require 13 wisdom which would be hard to get while keeping dex, con, and cha high) over the potential extra attack on a different target.

As for sharpshooter I did not do the math but I know that for a rogue what you say is true for sure since SA is such a significant part of your damage (as in nearly all of it) so missing on your one attack per round really hurts. However my build only gets up to 5d6, I get +2 to attack rolls, and lastly most of my damage per round comes from EB so unlike a standard rogue if I miss my SA my overall damage per round is not impacted as much (though conversely hitting with sharp shooter probably does not affect as much either too I suppose). I wonder if that really changes the math a bit?

[Vogonjeltz]

This seems obtuse. The description of eldritch blast says "Make a separate attack roll for each beam." If you make two attack rolls, and both hit, that's two hits.

The spell generates one-four beams based on level, the beams are being generated when you cast the spell (ergo simultaneously) which means they land simultaneously. So, if you target one creature with four beams they all move the target 10 feet...from it's starting position, net effect: It moves 10 feet. They aren't landing consecutively.

The tweet by crawford shows this because Eldritch Blast generates all the beams when the spell is cast. (simultaneous: occurring, operating, or done at the same time.)

These beams are, by definition, simultaneous, which means all the attacks land simultaneously, per Crawford.

[GiantOctopodes]

The spell generates one-four beams based on level, the beams are being generated when you cast the spell (ergo simultaneously) which means they land simultaneously. So, if you target one creature with four beams they all move the target 10 feet...from it's starting position, net effect: It moves 10 feet. They aren't landing consecutively.

The tweet by crawford shows this because Eldritch Blast generates all the beams when the spell is cast. (simultaneous: occurring, operating, or done at the same time.)

These beams are, by definition, simultaneous, which means all the attacks land simultaneously, per Crawford.

The beams are indeed generated when the spell is cast. The action of casting the spell is one action. One action can and does include multiple attacks. All of them being generated by a single action in no way states, much less implies, that they are simultaneous, from a literal or game mechanics standpoint.

[Hawkstar]

The duration of an Instantaneous spell is "Somewhere less than six seconds". Long enough to take whatever effects it needs within a round, not long enough to be dispelled or disrupted by subsequent actions.

[DracoKnight]

That's crazy.

I'm not playing a warlock at the moment, I was just browsing the rules.
I am gonna have to give that class a try some time.

And sure, I'm curious.
How would you mix that with a Sorc anything really?

It's not crazy. The *entirety* of the class is built around the use of it.

[coredump]

The spell generates one-four beams based on level, the beams are being generated when you cast the spell (ergo simultaneously) which means they land simultaneously. So, if you target one creature with four beams they all move the target 10 feet...from it's starting position, net effect: It moves 10 feet. They aren't landing consecutively.

The tweet by crawford shows this because Eldritch Blast generates all the beams when the spell is cast. (simultaneous: occurring, operating, or done at the same time.)

These beams are, by definition, simultaneous, which means all the attacks land simultaneously, per Crawford.
I don't know how you are getting that from his tweet. It was pretty explicit that EB attacks are not simultaneous. And another that says the Repelling blast works multiple times on the same target.

[Arial Black]

The beams are indeed generated when the spell is cast. The action of casting the spell is one action. One action can and does include multiple attacks. All of them being generated by a single action in no way states, much less implies, that they are simultaneous, from a literal or game mechanics standpoint.

Casting the spell (the VSM components) takes an action. The beams do not exist until the spell effect begins, and it cannot begin until the casting has been completed successfully.

The spell duration is 'instantaneous', and this is how long the beams last for. If you observe one beam flash into existence, strike a target, and wait to see if the target dies or not, then that 'instant' is long, long gone.

[Kryx]

Casting the spell (the VSM components) takes an action. The beams do not exist until the spell effect begins, and it cannot begin until the casting has been completed successfully.

The spell duration is 'instantaneous', and this is how long the beams last for. If you observe one beam flash into existence, strike a target, and wait to see if the target dies or not, then that 'instant' is long, long gone.
You're reading too much into instantaneous. This is not RAW. I understand you believe so, but Crawford has clarified otherwise. I understand that you believe that his clarification doesn't apply, but that's just not true.

[Arial Black]

You're reading too much into instantaneous. This is not RAW. I understand you believe so, but Crawford has clarified otherwise. I understand that you believe that his clarification doesn't apply, but that's just not true.

Even if the only knowledge you have about the word 'instantaneous' comes from its entry in the 'duration' section of the spellcasting chapter (instead of, y'know, being able to speak English, or having played ANY earlier edition of D&D), then that sentence tells us that such a spell cannot be dispelled because the magic is come and gone in an instant!

If 'instant' is up to 6 seconds, then the magic would not have come and gone so quickly that it couldn't be dispelled!

An 'instant' cannot both come and go too quickly to cast a spell at, while simultaneously lasting enough time to target, shoot, check for survivors, use that knowledge to decide who to target, rinse and repeat a total of four times.

'Reading too much into it'? You're advocating ignoring the spell's duration like it doesn't matter. That's not RAW, nor RAI. If duration wasn't a thing, then spells would not have an entry for 'duration' in their stat block.

[Kryx]

The duration does indeed matter for many things, just not this circumstance. Crawford has clarified that a spell must contain the "simultaneous" word or it is not simultaneous. There is no reason to discuss how the rules work - it has been clarified how it works.

I'm advocating that you stop repeating this same opinion in every thread. In all cases you've been told that your opinion is not the rules.

[Arial Black]

The duration does indeed matter for many things, just not this circumstance. Crawford has clarified that a spell must contain the "simultaneous" word or it is not simultaneous. There is no reason to discuss how the rules work - it has been clarified how it works.

I'm advocating that you stop repeating this same opinion in every thread. In all cases you've been told that your opinion is not the rules.

Even if Crawford wants us to resolve these attacks sequentially, this does not mean that the caster gets to know if the target of one beam dies before he chooses the target of the next beam.

[DracoKnight]

Even if Crawford wants us to resolve these attacks sequentially, this does not mean that the caster gets to know if the target of one beam dies before he chooses the target of the next beam.

Run your game by your own RAI, but let everyone else play by RAW - as it's been confirmed. If it bothers you, change it for your game, but you don't have to change the opinions of everyone else here. And also, this edition: DM Fiat is extremely prevalent. If if it's not RAW, the DM can say it's so. RAI, FTW.

[Arial Black]

Run your game by your own RAI, but let everyone else play by RAW - as it's been confirmed. If it bothers you, change it for your game, but you don't have to change the opinions of everyone else here. And also, this edition: DM Fiat is extremely prevalent. If if it's not RAW, the DM can say it's so. RAI, FTW.

You didn't even attempt to address the point to which you are allegedly replying.

Did Crawford say that the caster can possibly know if the first beam kills the target or not before he chooses the next target, four times, with an instantaneous spell?

[GiantOctopodes]

Even if Crawford wants us to resolve these attacks sequentially, this does not mean that the caster gets to know if the target of one beam dies before he chooses the target of the next beam.

This statement I agree with. In my campaigns we would, both the ones I'm playing in and ones I DM, but there is no requirement anywhere in RAW that the player be informed of whether or not the amount of damage dealt killed the target, at any point. If a DM wanted to run it that way, he could not tell players whether or not the targets have died at all, simply letting their lack of taking actions on subsequent turns speak to that effect. 4 people could continue to pour hits into the BBEG long after he's been slain, because the DM does not feel like revealing that information and the time at which such information is revealed is not specified. Such is totally acceptable per RAW, and is more of an individual DM thing.

However, it does mean that the effects of one beam apply before the next attack is made, meaning the target is pushed back 10' with repelling blast, for example, and the damage is dealt (whether or not the DM chooses to reveal the results of that damage on the target), *and then* the next attack in sequence is made, following all the normal steps under "making an attack".

[Arial Black]

This statement I agree with. In my campaigns we would, both the ones I'm playing in and ones I DM, but there is no requirement anywhere in RAW that the player be informed of whether or not the amount of damage dealt killed the target, at any point. If a DM wanted to run it that way, he could not tell players whether or not the targets have died at all, simply letting their lack of taking actions on subsequent turns speak to that effect. 4 people could continue to pour hits into the BBEG long after he's been slain, because the DM does not feel like revealing that information and the time at which such information is revealed is not specified. Such is totally acceptable per RAW, and is more of an individual DM thing.

Sure. The DM doesn't decide these things at random. He judges whether or not the PC can know. In the case of four beams shot in the same instant, he can (and should) rule that there is no way for the caster to have seen and mentally processed the results of one beam before choosing the target of the next.

I'm sure that the guest stars who are playing this week's villain will chew the scenery for a while before they finally expire, probably with some prophetic last words...! : )

[SharkForce]

the core rules actually tell you to fully resolve the hit before going on to the next one. so yeah, they pretty much do tell you to let the person know if the target died.

[GiantOctopodes]

the core rules actually tell you to fully resolve the hit before going on to the next one. so yeah, they pretty much do tell you to let the person know if the target died.

Not at all- resolving the hit doesn't *require* revealing whether or not the target died as a result. If you went up to a target, hit him, and asked the DM "did it die?" and his response was "Hard to tell. You definitely stabbed him. Do you want to stab him again to be sure?", you'd have no support under RAW for arguing that you do currently know that information. Should you say "Yeah, but can I move away from him without drawing an attack of opportunity?", the DM is within his rights to say "Why don't you try moving away from him and see what happens?" Even attempting to push or grapple the target, which would result in automatic success since the target, being dead, cannot make ability checks, would not necessarily reveal that information, as the DM is under no obligation to tell you your success was automatic rather than the result of a roll.

If such does not sound like an enjoyable DM to play under, I agree, but nothing in the rules says a DM cannot run a game this way. If they want to say that you don't have time to visually or mentally process whether or not your first arrow killed its target before loosing your second, that determining whether or not a target is dead requires an active Medicine check, or whatever else, that's within their power as a DM. Making you choose your targets before you've rolled and determined whether or not you've hit, or even making you choose your second target before you've rolled damage and applied it to the target for the first attack, that's in violation of the RAW, but nothing in the RAW requires them to tell you the target is dead, ever, as far as I am aware.

[Ruslan]

I'd say fully resolving a hit requires revealing whether the target dropped or not. It's not possible for a combatant not to notice whether his enemy is still standing or had dropped.


If such does not sound like an enjoyable DM to play under, I agree, but nothing in the rules says a DM cannot run a game this way.
If you want to turn the argument this way, there's nothing in the rules that say a DM can't grab the player's character sheet and eat it. Really, I checked the rules quite thoroughly, and there is absolutely nothing against eating your players character sheets. So there.

[coredump]

You didn't even attempt to address the point to which you are allegedly replying.

Did Crawford say that the caster can possibly know if the first beam kills the target or not before he chooses the next target, four times, with an instantaneous spell?

Of course not, that *ruling* is left up to the DM.

And the same thing can be said for the fighter with multiple attacks, or the archer.

There is no rule that says you get to shoot your arrow, and know if the target dies, before shooting another. Same for melee, there is no rule that allows you to 'know' if you killed someone before deciding your next attack.

[Vogonjeltz]

The beams are indeed generated when the spell is cast. The action of casting the spell is one action. One action can and does include multiple attacks. All of them being generated by a single action in no way states, much less implies, that they are simultaneous, from a literal or game mechanics standpoint.

I didn't say they were all generated by the same action, I said the spell says they are all generated upon casting. That's simultaneous. The extra attack feature in no way implies simultaneity. Eldritch blast says it outright.


I don't know how you are getting that from his tweet. It was pretty explicit that EB attacks are not simultaneous. And another that says the Repelling blast works multiple times on the same target.

His tweet doesn't mention eldritch blast at all, he's just giving the general guideline on how to determine when attacks are simultaneous or not and leaving it up to the reader to understand what that means. Eldritch blasts text says that the beams are created upon casting (the same time). That makes them simultaneous, which means: occurring at the same time.


The duration does indeed matter for many things, just not this circumstance. Crawford has clarified that a spell must contain the "simultaneous" word or it is not simultaneous. There is no reason to discuss how the rules work - it has been clarified how it works.

I'm advocating that you stop repeating this same opinion in every thread. In all cases you've been told that your opinion is not the rules.

Actually, no, that's not what he said.

The question asked was:

"Eldritch Blast: are the attacks resolved in parallel or sequence? Do you have to pick all the targets first before rolling?"

The answer was:

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

which is 1) not a straightforward answer and 2) not saying what you just said it did. It does not say that the word simultaneous is required.

Eldritch blast describes simultaneous activity in the spell text. It doesn't use the word, but Crawford also didn't say the word was specifically required, just that the spell or feature say that the activity is occurring at the same time, which is exactly what it does say.

[GiantOctopodes]

I didn't say they were all generated by the same action, I said the spell says they are all generated upon casting. That's simultaneous. The extra attack feature in no way implies simultaneity. Eldritch blast says it outright.

Eldritch blast describes simultaneous activity in the spell text. It doesn't use the word, but Crawford also didn't say the word was specifically required, just that the spell or feature say that the activity is occurring at the same time, which is exactly what it does say.

How? In what way shape or form are they simultaneous by being created upon casting the same spell? How are 4 attacks as part of Eldritch Blast any different, in any way, than 4 attacks from shooting a bow? What grounds do you have for that distinction?

The text says "The spell creates more than one beam when you reach higher levels: two beams at 5th level, three beams at 11th level, and four beams at 17th level. You can direct the beams at the same target or at different ones. Make a separate attack roll for each beam." Nothing in there says it occurs at the same time or simultaneously in any way. They all occur as part of the action of casting the spell, but you are saying it being part of 1 action is not the grounds upon which you are arguing. So what is?

[Arial Black]

If you take the Attack action, and have the Extra Attack class ability, that action gives you permission to take two attacks, spread throughout your turn however you like. This 'spreading the attacks out' part is only allowed because the Attack action specifically allows it.

Actions do not have a duration, in and of themselves.

Attacks do not have a duration in and of themselves.

Spells, however, do have a duration.

When you cast a spell, you do not take the Attack action, therefore the rules about spreading your attacks do not apply.

When you want to cast a spell, you must take the Cast A Spell action. This is usually an action, but may be a bonus action or a reaction. casting the spell takes an action (or bonus action or reaction), but the effects of the spell begin when the casting is completed, and end when the duration ends. Every single part of the spell effect takes place entirely within its duration. No part of it occurs while the spell is in the process of being cast.

The effect of the eldritch blast spell is to create one or more beams. If there are more than one beam, it is one single attack with multiple attack rolls, just like Whirlwind Attack, as confirmed by a Crawford tweet.

As an instantaneous spell, all of the spell effects (in this case, the beams) come and go in the same instant. According to the spellcasting chapter, this instant is too fast for anyone to cast a dispel at it, and this means it is certainly too fast to shoot one beam, see if the target dies, then use that information to decide who to target next.

The reason we know that multiple attacks from a bow are consecutive (if using the Attack action) is because the Attack action says we can spread the attacks throughout the turn.

The reasons we know that multiple beams from an eldritch blast come and go at the same time include the fact that you do not use the Attack action, therefore the rules in that action do not apply to the Cast A Spell action; we know that tthe spell is a single attack with multiple attack rolls; and all of the beams come and go in the same instant, a period of time which is too fast for anyone to do anything about.

It should not surprise anyone that, just because arrows from a bow are sequential, that this doesn't make things that are not multiple attacks using the Attack action work the same way. They are not the same; they were always different.

[Anlashok]

and this means it is certainly too fast to shoot one beam, see if the target dies, then use that information to decide who to target next.
No it doesn't. This is a logical leap that is not supported by anything in the rules. You can't just make up new meanings for things and decree them rules and act like anyone who doesn't like your houserules doesn't know what they're talking about. It's a perfectly valid house rule and if you want to play that way that's fine, but that's all it is.

That they aren't sequential because they're too fast to be sequential is a circuitous non-argument. So constnatly repeating it doesn't really help your position.

So right now it comes down to arial black on the forums saying they work one way because that's the way he wants them to work versus a dev claiming they don't. Is it really a surprise that some people would take the dev's opinion over you constantly shouting "NUH UH" over and over?

[GiantOctopodes]

If you take the Attack action, and have the Extra Attack class ability, that action gives you permission to take two attacks

True.

, spread throughout your turn however you like.
Not true. You must complete the action before you can use your bonus action or object interaction, the only thing you can do mid-action is movement.

This 'spreading the attacks out' part is only allowed because the Attack action specifically allows it.

Half true. Being able to take movement in between attacks is expressly allowed by 'moving between attacks', which has nothing to do with the attack action, but rather deals with actions that involve multiple weapon attacks, a category to which the attack action belongs.



Actions do not have a duration, in and of themselves.

Attacks do not have a duration in and of themselves.

Half true. They must be less than 6 seconds long.


Spells, however, do have a duration.

True


When you cast a spell, you do not take the Attack action

True

, therefore the rules about spreading your attacks do not apply.

Half true. The rules about spreading your attacks do indeed not apply, since you're using spell attacks, not weapon attacks, but it's not because you're not using the Attack action.



When you want to cast a spell, you must take the Cast A Spell action. This is usually an action, but may be a bonus action or a reaction. casting the spell takes an action (or bonus action or reaction),

True.

but the effects of the spell begin when the casting is completed,

Half true, attack rolls (such as with Eldritch Blast) are part of the "casting a spell" action and occur as part of that action, not after. You do not mean to imply that you make attacks *after* the action is completed after all, do you?

and end when the duration ends.

True.

Every single part of the spell effect takes place entirely within its duration. No part of it occurs while the spell is in the process of being cast.

Patently untrue, and wholly unsupported by the rules text. Please back this up with some kind of reference.



The effect of the eldritch blast spell is to create one or more beams.

True.


If there are more than one beam, it is one single attack with multiple attack rolls, just like Whirlwind Attack, as confirmed by a Crawford tweet.

Patently untrue. Though it is indeed just like Whirlwind attack in phrasing and all other important ways, as per his tweet from less than 24 hours ago:
"If you get 3 attacks with Eldritch Blast, can the first attack push a target out of range of the next two attacks?"
"Yes, Repelling Blast can push a target out of the range of subsequent beams from eldritch blast."
This cannot be the case if all of the beams strike the target at the same location. It also cannot be the case if it is all one attack. Sorry, JC is not on your side on this.



As an instantaneous spell, all of the spell effects (in this case, the beams) come and go in the same instant. According to the spellcasting chapter, this instant is too fast for anyone to cast a dispel at it, and this means it is certainly too fast to shoot one beam, see if the target dies, then use that information to decide who to target next.

Says you, not the rules. You still haven't addressed how, if it's too fast for anyone to react to it, folks can indeed react to it, both with readied actions and reactions (both Mage Slayer and Counterspell).



The reason we know that multiple attacks from a bow are consecutive (if using the Attack action) is because the Attack action says we can spread the attacks throughout the turn.

Patently untrue. This is what the attack action actually says: "The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists. With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the “Making an Attack” section for the rules that govern attacks. Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action."
Tell me, where exactly is this description of being able to spread the attacks throughout the turn you keep referring to?



The reasons we know that multiple beams from an eldritch blast come and go at the same time

Untrue

include the fact that you do not use the Attack action, therefore the rules in that action do not apply to the Cast A Spell action;

True

we know that tthe spell is a single attack with multiple attack rolls;

untrue

and all of the beams come and go in the same instant, a period of time which is too fast for anyone to do anything about.

untrue.


It should not surprise anyone that, just because arrows from a bow are sequential, that this doesn't make things that are not multiple attacks using the Attack action work the same way. They are not the same; they were always different.
In what way are they different, again? The rules you claim are there are not, the rules to which you are referring do not say what you claim they say. Please feel free to try again.

[Hawkstar]

If 'instant' is up to 6 seconds, then the magic would not have come and gone so quickly that it couldn't be dispelled!Sure it is. It lasts the same amount of time it takes a high-level fighter to swing his sword four times, or a rogue to, at full sprint, move 30', or a wizard to start and finish shouting "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!"


An 'instant' cannot both come and go too quickly to cast a spell at, while simultaneously lasting enough time to target, shoot, check for survivors, use that knowledge to decide who to target, rinse and repeat a total of four times.
Sure it does. The 'dispel' spell takes the same amount of time to cast and resolve, so that, after seeing a Warlock start to cast Eldritch Blast and start flinging his force beams around, the dispel-caster starts his spell, and has it take effect after the last beam is fired (In a spectacular but worthless shower of shiny particle effects). It takes less than a second to target, shoot, check for survivors, rinse+repeat (As anyone who plays any video game can tell you).

[Gnomes2169]

Duration measures how long the energy of the spell acts on the target. An instantaneous spell damages, heals, pushes, etc upon interacting with the target, and then stops acting on them. It doesn't measure how long the spell takes to cast and deliver, just how long it acts on the creature. This interpretation is still supported by the game, seeing as it still can't be dispelled after it impacts, since the energy is still no longer acting on the target after it hits. However, it allows the spell to actually be displayed visibly (it no longer resolves at the speed of light), allows logic to function properly (if something is resolved instantaneously, there is no way to react to it and thus no possible dexterity saving throws or dex to AC, which are fluffed as reacting to the offensive force), and gives a nice three-step progression to spellcasting:

Step 1: Spell is cast (equivalent to attack action being taken. Or a bonus action being used. Or whatever.)

Step 2: Spell is delivered (equivalent to declaring a target/ targets and making attack rolls/ forcing saving throws. This can loop between step 2&3 if multiple attacks are possible, muck like an attack or action with multiple attacks). This step includes each display and projectile, created one after the other unless the spell itself states otherwise.

Step 3: Spell resolves (Similar to the damage step of the attack action.) In the case of a spell that has multiple attacks, after finishing the damage roll treat it like an an attack action and go back to step 2 to deliver the next beam/ orb/ whatever unless the spell explicitly states that all of the spell's attacks resolve simultaneously. Repeat until all parts of the spell have resolved.

Duration comes in at the "resolution" stage. For eldritch blast, this instantly and un-disspell-ably deals damage. If you have agonizing blast, you deal more damage. If you have repelling blast, the target is also instantaneously pushed back 10 feet. And at this point, you have resolved the first beam, as nothing explicitly states that all beams fire simultaneously. This means that you go back to step 2 and deliver the next beam, possibly hitting again and pushing the target back farther. Enemies with high dex still add it to AC, allowing them to potentially dodge all of the pretty purple bolts (aka, causing the warlock to miss), and the warlock may still target as they go, since nothing specifies how long it takes the bolts to be shot and effects delivered. The only limit on timing is that the spell must be completed before the end of the warlock's turn, really.

Now tell me exactly where this interpretation, which seems to be rather in line with the rules and which at least seems to fit with what many people arguing against duration=Delivery and resolution appear to be saying, is wrong by the rules. Quote passages from the PHB if at all possible, and try to find places where eldrich blast (and other multi-attack spells that can target multiple creatures) explicitly state that their projectiles are targeted simultaneously.

[Arial Black]

All of the following quotes come from the Spellcasting chapter.

Under 'Casting a Spell': "Each spell description in chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, range, components, and duration. The rest of the spell entry describes the spell's effect".

This defines which part of a spell description is the 'spell effect'; the body of text below the stat block describes the 'effect', and when the spell 'effect' is cited, this is what it means. For eldritch blast, the beams are described here and not in the stat block, therefore the beams most certainly are the spell 'effect'.

Under 'Duration': "A spell's duration is the length of time a spell persists". Wait, what do you mean by 'spell' in this context? "Some spells specify that their effects last until the spells are dispelled or destroyed".

This means that when it says that the 'duration' is the length of time that a 'spell' exists, that the 'duration' is the length of time that the spell 'effect' persists. The 'spell effect' is the spell!

For eldritch blast, the duration is 'instantaneous', therefore its effects persist for 'an instant'. Since the beams are the spell effect, then the beams only last for that instant. They do not exist before the effect exists, because they are the effect.

Under 'Components': "A spell's components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it....If you can't provide one or more of a spell's components, you are unable to cast the spell".

This means that you must complete the components before the spell begins, because if you haven't completed the components then you haven't provided the components and are unable to cast the spell.

This means that the beams do not exist while you are in the process of casting, because the effects do not exist until the casting has been completed. You can decide who to target, but you can no more make attack rolls for beams that don't exist yet than you can make attack rolls for a sword that is still in its scabbard.

As for attack rolls, these are called for to see if the attack you just made were successful. If you shoot an arrow, you don't get to make the attack roll while the arrow is still in your quiver or still nocked and drawn. You make an attack roll after you release the arrow, and the attack roll determines if it hit.

When you make an attack roll for one of the beams which are the effect of eldtritch blast, then you are determining if the beam that has already 'streak(ed) towards' the target creature actually hit it or not.

You cannot make the attack rolls before the beams exist, and the beams exist entirely within the duration because the beams are the spell 'effect'. The damage those beams do is definitely not the spell effect, because if it was, then that damage would go away when the spell ends.

[Kryx]

Give it a rest, please. You're receiving the same response here and the wizards forums.

[squiggit]

Fundamentally I'm just not seeing how it help the argument at all. Yes, you've successfully defined how instantaneous spells work (with some quibbles) but none of that has really anything at all to do with whether or not the beams are sequential. Literally nothing.

[DracoKnight]

All of the following quotes come from the Spellcasting chapter.

Under 'Casting a Spell': "Each spell description in chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, range, components, and duration. The rest of the spell entry describes the spell's effect".

This defines which part of a spell description is the 'spell effect'; the body of text below the stat block describes the 'effect', and when the spell 'effect' is cited, this is what it means. For eldritch blast, the beams are described here and not in the stat block, therefore the beams most certainly are the spell 'effect'.

Under 'Duration': "A spell's duration is the length of time a spell persists". Wait, what do you mean by 'spell' in this context? "Some spells specify that their effects last until the spells are dispelled or destroyed".

This means that when it says that the 'duration' is the length of time that a 'spell' exists, that the 'duration' is the length of time that the spell 'effect' persists. The 'spell effect' is the spell!

For eldritch blast, the duration is 'instantaneous', therefore its effects persist for 'an instant'. Since the beams are the spell effect, then the beams only last for that instant. They do not exist before the effect exists, because they are the effect.

Under 'Components': "A spell's components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it....If you can't provide one or more of a spell's components, you are unable to cast the spell".

This means that you must complete the components before the spell begins, because if you haven't completed the components then you haven't provided the components and are unable to cast the spell.

This means that the beams do not exist while you are in the process of casting, because the effects do not exist until the casting has been completed. You can decide who to target, but you can no more make attack rolls for beams that don't exist yet than you can make attack rolls for a sword that is still in its scabbard.

As for attack rolls, these are called for to see if the attack you just made were successful. If you shoot an arrow, you don't get to make the attack roll while the arrow is still in your quiver or still knocked and drawn. You make an attack roll after you release the arrow, and the attack roll determines if it hit.

When you make an attack roll for one of the beams which are the effect of eldtritch blast, then you are determining if the beam that has already 'streak(ed) towards' the target creature actually hit it or not.

You cannot make the attack rolls before the beams exist, and the beams exist entirely within the duration because the beams are the spell 'effect'. The damage those beams do is definitely not the spell effect, because if it was, then that damage would go away when the spell ends.

The fact that the beams are instantaneous almost makes it more logical that they're sequential. If you have 6 seconds, and each beam only lasts for an instant, then it leaves you time to see what happened.

On a side note: why is this even an argument? Do you have to feel validated? Why can't you play by your houserules, and let every other DM play by theirs? Must we all play by the rulings of Arial Black? I'm honestly curious.

[Arial Black]

On the subject of spreading your attacks throughout the round, and whether or not you must complete every attack granted by this attack action before you can use another action/bonus action:-

Crawford was asked: "Timing of Shield Master bonus shove. Does "take attack action" mean make 1 or all att rolls 1st? or can shove then attack?"

The answer: "As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action."

And yet...you cannot take the bonus Shield Master shove until after you take the attack action! What's going on?

It took me a while to realise this about 5E, but 'taking the Attack action' =/= 'resolving those attacks'!

In earlier editions, when I say I'm taking the standard action to attack, this was at the same moment that I resolved that attack. But 5E doesn't work that way, as illustrated by the fact that a Shield Master can take the Attack action, which allows him to take the Bonus Action shove, and then resolve those attacks/shove in any order he wishes.

When you 'take an Action' in 5E, your PC doesn't actually do anything! What 'taking an action' does is allow you to do stuff related to that Action type, at any time between the moment you take that action until the end of your turn.

When you take the Dash action, what happens to your mini? Where does it move? Nothing. It doesn't move at all. What taking the Dash action does is simply allow you to move further that round, and you can take that movement any time you want during that turn.

What happens to your mini when you take the Disengage action? Nothing. Taking that action just allows you to move without provoking, but you can move any time you want during that turn.

If you take the Attack action (and have the Extra Attack feature), nothing happens. No attacks are resolved. What taking the Attack action does is allow you to make (in this case) two attacks during your turn, but you can take those attacks any time you want during your turn.

The bonus action shove is allowed only if you 'take the Attack action on your turn'. It is not dependent on 'when you make an attack on your turn'. See the crucial difference.

When you take the 'Cast a spell' Action (or Bonus Action), this allows you to cast a spell on your turn. Exactly when, during your turn, you choose to do that is up to you. But what 'casting' actually is, is what causes the spell effect to exist, and as soon as it does then the spell lasts for its duration. When you (finally) decide to cast the spell that your 'Cast a Spell' action allows, then you say the magic words, do the mystic hand movements and provide the weird materials. Until you complete that process, the spell effect does not exist. If you successfully complete the casting process, the the spell immediately begins (unless you Ready it, but that's a different Action), and lasts for its duration.

For eldritch blast you take the Cast a Spell action, and can then cast a spell at some point during your turn. You can mess about doing other stuff, but the spell duration hasn't started yet and the beams do not exist. When you finally 'cast' the spell, this means you provide the VSM components. While you are in the process of doing this, the spell has not yet begun and the beams do not exist.

At the moment you complete the casting, the spell effect begins, lasts for its duration, and ends. For this spell, as soon as the 'casting' is complete, one to four beams of crackling energy streak towards the creatures you have targeted, in a single instant. Once that instant is done, the spell ends because its duration has ended. The results of those damaging beams may well be that creatures have sustained damage, and may even be 10 feet away from where they were before being struck, but those results are not the 'spell effect', and don't go away when the spell ends.

[The_Pyromancer]

In response to the question about whether or not Eldritch Blast hits simultaneously, let's look at a similar spell, Magic Missile.

Magic Missile also deals force damage and creates multiple darts that can target different creatures. It specifically says, "You create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range. A dart deals 1d4 + 1 force damage to its target. The darts all strike simultaneously, and you can direct them to hit one creature or several." It specifically includes the word "simultaneously" here, meaning that you cannot switch targets after hitting and killing one.

For comparison, Eldritch Blast says, "A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage. The spell creates more than one beam when you reach higher levels: two beams at 5th level, three beams at 11th level, and four beams at 17th level. You can direct the beams at the same target or at different ones. Make a separate attack roll for each beam." Notice that Magic Missile included that the darts hit simultaneously in the line where it said you can target multiple creatures, but EB didn't? That is very indicative that EB's rays are not, in fact, simultaneous.

Also, the specific text of instantaneous says, 'Many spells are instantaneous. 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." It says nothing about multiple attack rolls being simultaneous. Also, it specifically does not say the effects of the spell. It says the magic itself. The effects, such as the damage dealt to a creature, are not instantaneous, and can last much longer. It simply says that it cannot be dispelled, as with dispel magic. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Arial Black]

In response to the question about whether or not Eldritch Blast hits simultaneously, let's look at a similar spell, Magic Missile.

Magic Missile also deals force damage and creates multiple darts that can target different creatures. It specifically says, "You create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range. A dart deals 1d4 + 1 force damage to its target. The darts all strike simultaneously, and you can direct them to hit one creature or several." It specifically includes the word "simultaneously" here, meaning that you cannot switch targets after hitting and killing one.

For comparison, Eldritch Blast says, "A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage. The spell creates more than one beam when you reach higher levels: two beams at 5th level, three beams at 11th level, and four beams at 17th level. You can direct the beams at the same target or at different ones. Make a separate attack roll for each beam." Notice that Magic Missile included that the darts hit simultaneously in the line where it said you can target multiple creatures, but EB didn't? That is very indicative that EB's rays are not, in fact, simultaneous.

There is no default position here. The lack of the word 'simultaneous' in the text does not mean that the attacks must therefore be consecutive.

If the spell created several, consecutive attacks, there would be absolutely no need to say that you can choose 'the same or different targets' for each beam, since choosing a target for each attack is part of the attack. That wording is only required because they are simultaneous.

Also, a tweet from JC tells us that there is a difference between 'attack' and 'attack roll, that a single 'attack' may involve multiple 'attack rolls', and we can tell when a feature or spell means 'attack' OR 'attack roll', simply by reading the text!

Eldritch blast says you make a single attack. At higher levels, you get more beams (not more 'attacks'), and each beam requires its own 'attack roll'.

Therefore, eldritch blast is a single 'attack' with multiple 'attack rolls'.


Also, the specific text of instantaneous says, 'Many spells are instantaneous. 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." It says nothing about multiple attack rolls being simultaneous.

Nor does it say anything about multiple attack rolls being consecutive.


Also, it specifically does not say the effects of the spell. It says the magic itself

The 'effects' of the spell are the magic of the spell!


The effects, such as the damage dealt to a creature, are not instantaneous, and can last much longer. It simply says that it cannot be dispelled, as with dispel magic. Nothing more, nothing less.

If 'instantaneous' means nothing at all, other than 'undispellable', why is it listed under duration? What did 'instantaneous duration' mean in earlier editions, where the 'undispellable' line did not exist?

Words mean things. 'Instantaneous' means 'taking place in an instant'. An 'instant', literally, is an infinitely small but non-zero span of time. Used less precisely, it still means a span of time which is so short that for all intents and purposes it is practically instantaneous. If you had time to watch the results of part of an instantaneous spell, and could use that knowledge in deciding who to target with the rest of the spell, then this by definition is not either 'instantaneous' or even 'practically instantaneous'. It is willfully ignoring the duration, and pretending that it isn't instantaneous at all!

[Kryx]

There is no default position here. The lack of the word 'simultaneous' in the text does not mean that the attacks must therefore be consecutive.
That's exactly how it works.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/614588258404597760

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

Your opinion is not RAW or RAI.

[coredump]

That's exactly how it works.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/614588258404597760
Yep, if it doesn't *say* simultaneous, it isn't. An 'implication' is not enough.



Your opinion is not RAW or RAI.I guess that only leaves RONG

[Arial Black]

Your opinion is not RAW or RAI.

JC's opinion isn't RAW either. It is not written in the book.

Also, whatever rule he tweets about multiple 'attacks' doesn't apply to single attacks with multiple 'attack rolls', like Whirlwind Attack or eldritch blast.

[GiantOctopodes]

All of the following quotes come from the Spellcasting chapter.

Under 'Casting a Spell': "Each spell description in chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, range, components, and duration. The rest of the spell entry describes the spell's effect".

This defines which part of a spell description is the 'spell effect'; the body of text below the stat block describes the 'effect', and when the spell 'effect' is cited, this is what it means. For eldritch blast, the beams are described here and not in the stat block, therefore the beams most certainly are the spell 'effect'.

Under 'Duration': "A spell's duration is the length of time a spell persists". Wait, what do you mean by 'spell' in this context? "Some spells specify that their effects last until the spells are dispelled or destroyed".

This means that when it says that the 'duration' is the length of time that a 'spell' exists, that the 'duration' is the length of time that the spell 'effect' persists. The 'spell effect' is the spell!

For eldritch blast, the duration is 'instantaneous', therefore its effects persist for 'an instant'. Since the beams are the spell effect, then the beams only last for that instant. They do not exist before the effect exists, because they are the effect.

Under 'Components': "A spell's components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it....If you can't provide one or more of a spell's components, you are unable to cast the spell".

This means that you must complete the components before the spell begins, because if you haven't completed the components then you haven't provided the components and are unable to cast the spell.

This means that the beams do not exist while you are in the process of casting, because the effects do not exist until the casting has been completed. You can decide who to target, but you can no more make attack rolls for beams that don't exist yet than you can make attack rolls for a sword that is still in its scabbard.

As for attack rolls, these are called for to see if the attack you just made were successful. If you shoot an arrow, you don't get to make the attack roll while the arrow is still in your quiver or still nocked and drawn. You make an attack roll after you release the arrow, and the attack roll determines if it hit.

When you make an attack roll for one of the beams which are the effect of eldtritch blast, then you are determining if the beam that has already 'streak(ed) towards' the target creature actually hit it or not.

You cannot make the attack rolls before the beams exist, and the beams exist entirely within the duration because the beams are the spell 'effect'. The damage those beams do is definitely not the spell effect, because if it was, then that damage would go away when the spell ends.

I must congratulate you on your best researched post yet. It truly was enjoyable to read, thank you.
Under components, your quote is correct, but your conclusion is not. It says if you can't provide the components, you are unable to cast the spell. So, if you're bound, silenced, lack the material components, whatever. Not that you must complete the verbal and somatic components *and then* cast the spell. After all, that's what a component is! A part or element of the larger whole! What is that larger whole? Casting a spell!

You have not provided any support in there for the action (casting a spell) completing *and then* resolving the effects of it. You jumped straight from needing components to cast the spell to that conclusion, so I'm not sure where you are trying to draw your support for the statement "because the effects do not exist until the casting has been completed". I mean, after all, I'm arguing the opposite- that the effects *must* exist as part of that action, since nothing in the game allows you to make attack rolls outside of actions, bonus actions, and reactions. You don't get to have just free floating attack rolls in a nebulous period of time that are used.

Your analogy regarding the bow is exactly how I argue it works for Eldritch Blast as well. You loose a beam, make an attack roll, and then loose subsequent beams, making an attack roll for each. Just like loosing an arrow.

Edit:

There is no default position here. The lack of the word 'simultaneous' in the text does not mean that the attacks must therefore be consecutive.

If the spell created several, consecutive attacks, there would be absolutely no need to say that you can choose 'the same or different targets' for each beam, since choosing a target for each attack is part of the attack. That wording is only required because they are simultaneous.

Also, a tweet from JC tells us that there is a difference between 'attack' and 'attack roll, that a single 'attack' may involve multiple 'attack rolls', and we can tell when a feature or spell means 'attack' OR 'attack roll', simply by reading the text!

Eldritch blast says you make a single attack. At higher levels, you get more beams (not more 'attacks'), and each beam requires its own 'attack roll'.

Therefore, eldritch blast is a single 'attack' with multiple 'attack rolls'.


Look, I of all people am not going to tell you that you must believe everything that comes out of JC's mouth. However, your argument is very convoluted at this point. RAW IS that a single attack roll is the 3rd step in a single attack, and that if multiple attack rolls occur, you must be having multiple attacks. Please reference the singular tense in the rules for the structure of an attack, notably when it comes to making the attack roll (singular). Choosing a target is indeed the first step in making an attack. Also singular. By saying you may choose the same or different targets, it's now automatically multiple attacks per RAW. Saying you are making a separate attack roll for each only reinforces this point. The only thing it has not clearly delineated is that you determine modifiers separately for each as well, and you're certainly not arguing you use the same modifiers for each target, are you?

So, if you're going to argue from a strictly RAW standpoint, you're wrong. If you're going to follow JC's verdicts, you're wrong again. If you're going to follow JC's tweets in preference to RAW, first, I'd advise you to pay attention to the two different tweets he's made on this exact topic in the past week, one of which expressly states that there is a first attack, and then subsequent attacks.

Furthermore, if you're going to use "a tweet from JC" as an argument, it would help to post the tweet in question, since I have no idea what you're referring to with that reference (I don't follow him, I don't have clippings of all his tweets posted on my walls, so it's possible there is a tweet like the one you describe, but I certainly don't know of it). Without seeing the tweet, how are we supposed to know that it actually says what you indicate it says?

Further Edit:

JC's opinion isn't RAW either. It is not written in the book.

Agreed!


Also, whatever rule he tweets about multiple 'attacks' doesn't apply to single attacks with multiple 'attack rolls', like Whirlwind Attack or eldritch blast.
So I see you're still ignoring this:


Patently untrue. Though it is indeed just like Whirlwind attack in phrasing and all other important ways, as per his tweet from less than 24 hours ago:
"If you get 3 attacks with Eldritch Blast, can the first attack push a target out of range of the next two attacks?"
"Yes, Repelling Blast can push a target out of the range of subsequent beams from eldritch blast."
This cannot be the case if all of the beams strike the target at the same location. It also cannot be the case if it is all one attack. Sorry, JC is not on your side on this.

Wherein his latest tweet directly states that it applies to Eldritch Blast?

[Kryx]

I'll take up the tweet issue since I am a RAI fanboi. It really doesn't matter what Crawford wrote elsewhere. He directly answered the question for Eldritch Blast in the Tweet I put above:
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/614588258404597760

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

Crawford: "Multiple attacks on the same turn aren't simultaneous, unless a feature or spell says otherwise."
I really don't know how much more clear it can be. Your opinion is not correct.




JC's opinion isn't RAW either. It is not written in the book.
You're right, but this is no longer 3.X where RAW reigns supreme. If you want to play in a strict RAW world where exact wording reigns supreme then there are hundreds of cases where you will be upset.
5e was not designed to be read like a law book. It is designed to use "plain english".
You can read more about 5e's use of RAW, RAI, etc: PHILOSOPHY BEHIND RULES AND RULINGS (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/philosophy-behind-rules-and-rulings)


Even then RAW doesn't support your opinion either. This is evidences on this forum as well ad WotC's forums. Both places have utterly rejected your opinion.

[The_Pyromancer]

There is no default position here. The lack of the word 'simultaneous' in the text does not mean that the attacks must therefore be consecutive.

Yes it does, as per JC tweet. Even without that, look at the wording of the spells- on specifically states the darts hit simultaneously and you can hit multiple targets. The other simply states you can hit multiple targets.


If the spell created several, consecutive attacks, there would be absolutely no need to say that you can choose 'the same or different targets' for each beam, since choosing a target for each attack is part of the attack. That wording is only required because they are simultaneous.

Well, yes, there would, to clear up confusion. The attacks are all generated by the spell, and it should be said that the spell can be used to target multiple creatures. There is a great reason for this.


Also, a tweet from JC tells us that there is a difference between 'attack' and 'attack roll, that a single 'attack' may involve multiple 'attack rolls', and we can tell when a feature or spell means 'attack' OR 'attack roll', simply by reading the text!

Eldritch blast says you make a single attack. At higher levels, you get more beams (not more 'attacks'), and each beam requires its own 'attack roll'.

Therefore, eldritch blast is a single 'attack' with multiple 'attack rolls'.

That's not how things work. One attack roll per attack.


The 'effects' of the spell are the magic of the spell!

Well, no. There is no RAW on this. As I see it, the magic of the spell produces the effect. The magic is the casting, the effect the beams that you can direct at enemies. The magic (the spell itself) cannot be dispelled.


If 'instantaneous' means nothing at all, other than 'undispellable', why is it listed under duration? What did 'instantaneous duration' mean in earlier editions, where the 'undispellable' line did not exist?

Words mean things. 'Instantaneous' means 'taking place in an instant'. An 'instant', literally, is an infinitely small but non-zero span of time. Used less precisely, it still means a span of time which is so short that for all intents and purposes it is practically instantaneous. If you had time to watch the results of part of an instantaneous spell, and could use that knowledge in deciding who to target with the rest of the spell, then this by definition is not either 'instantaneous' or even 'practically instantaneous'. It is willfully ignoring the duration, and pretending that it isn't instantaneous at all!

Instantaneous means that you cannot dispel it. That is a perfect length. The magic of the spell exists for only an instant. The effects may not, like the damage done to a creature. And again, this is not 'earlier editions,' this is a new edition. The instantaneous is referring to the magic that creates the beams, not the beams themselves. The beams are the effects, which can last longer.

[MarkTriumphant]

That's not how things work. One attack roll per attack.


I think it unwise to rely on that, as I would say that it isn't the case for many spells - those with area effects.

[Arial Black]

When in debate, you don't use the arguments that your opponents are not using, you use the one's they are using. I'm debating plenty of people who bring up JC's tweets. I'm not on Twitter, so the only reason I'm even aware of their existence is because someone else posted them.

So, we can either use his tweets, or not use his tweets and just use the words written in the book, in conjunction with our reason and our understanding of what those words mean (in an edition which is proud of using 'natural language').

If we use his tweets, then he has tweeted that there is a difference between 'attack' and 'attack roll', that a single 'attack' can involve multiple 'attack rolls' to resolve, and that we know which is called for just by reading the words. These truths about his game are what the RAW of Whirlwind Attack are compared to. The fact that he rules that Whirlwind Attack is a single attack involving multiple attack rolls stems from the RAW of WA saying 'attack' and 'attack roll' in a way that must lead to that conclusion. Since eldritch blast uses 'attack' and 'attack roll' in the same way, then those rules must apply to eldritch blast just as surely as they apply to WA.

The other tweet does not say if eldritch blast is one type or the other; it just gave a general rule so we can work it out ourselves, not only for this one spell but for all spells and features.

The tweet about Repelling Blast indicates that he rules the blasts as sequential, but does not indicate that the caster can see if one blast kills the target before choosing the next. Indeed, although he says that the 'first' beam can move the target out of range for the second, he does not say that the caster can re-direct the beams if this is the case.

Can JC be wrong about his own game? Well, as soon as he contradicts himself he has shown himself to be wrong.

If we don't use his tweets, we are left with the rulebook. Cause and effect, 'casting' the spell is the cause, the 'spell effect' is the effect. Cause must precede effect. The casting process must be complete before the spell duration starts, because the 'casting' causes the spell. That section of the spellcasting chapter doesn't suggest a difference between 'unable to provide the components' and 'have not provided the components, but we could if we wanted to'. Being 'able' to provide the components is not enough, you have to actually provide them, and until you do, you have not provided them and the spell cannot be cast. You cannot have the spell work by promising to provide the components later!

We also have the 'instantaneous' duration. We also know that this type of spell cannot be dispelled. Why? Is it because the magical fabric of these spells is somehow resistant to being dispelled? No, it's because the magic has come and gone 'in an instant'.

We must assume that all the words mean the same in the book as they do in 'natural language', unless we have a reason to believe otherwise. We know that 'instant' cannot merely mean 'undispellable', because then the sentence would read 'cannot be dispelled because the magic has come and gone in an undispellable'; also, 'instantaneous' is a 'duration', therefore the word must refer to a span of time.

What span of time? How long is an 'instant'? Literally, an 'instant' is 'an infinitely small, but non-zero, span of time'. The consequence of that is that this time span cannot be divided into smaller parts, therefore multiple things happening in an instant must be simultaneous. Is 'instant' always used that way in 'natural language'? No, it is used imprecisely to just mean 'practically instant'; so short a span of time that no person could wait 'til half-way through the instant, see the result, and change his mind about how to target the rest of the instant.

If an 'instant' were slow enough to let you shoot one beam, see if the target dies or not, then use that information to help you choose who to target with the next, four times in succession, then first: this is no kind of 'instant', and second: this would be plenty of time to target it with dispel magic after you shoot one beam and before you shoot the next. But we know that you can't, and we know that the reason you can't is because the magic comes and goes in an instant!

Does 'instantaneous' inevitably result in the beams being 'simultaneous'? If 'instant' is used literally: yes. If 'instant' is used to mean 'practically instant', then this results in the beams being 'practically simultaneous', maybe shot sequentially, but happening so fast the caster cannot make individual targeting decisions during the instant based on the results he can perceive.

In real life, a machine gun fires 600-900 rounds per minute. That's 10-15 rounds per second. No-one can doubt that these rounds are fired one-at-a-time from the barrel; you can't have three bullets travel side-by-side down the same barrel! So these rounds are definitely sequential. Does that mean that the machine gunner can see if any single bullet kills the target, and change targets, for every single one of those 10-15 bullets? No.

And that is in one second. 'Instant', in natural language in the context of a six second combat round, is faster than a whole second. If it was slower, then it would be slow enough to be targeted by dispel magic. Four beams in an 'instant' is at least as fast as a machine gun. There is no way, even with the 'practically instant' but sequential beams, that the caster can wait to see what one beam did before choosing the target for the next beam (four times consecutively!) while the magic still 'comes and goes in an instant' too quickly to be dispelled.

[Arial Black]

One attack roll per attack.

JC himself is definite on the fact that one 'attack' can require multiple 'attack rolls', therefore one 'attack roll' does not equal one 'attack'; this is the basis of his ruling about Whirlwind Attack.


As I see it, the magic of the spell produces the effect. The magic is the casting, the effect the beams that you can direct at enemies. The magic (the spell itself) cannot be dispelled.

The 'casting' is an entirely mundane procedure involving chanting magical words, making mystical gestures and providing weird materials. These are not 'magic' in and of themselves. You can do all of these things in an anti-magic area. Done right, they cause the spell effect, and the spell effect is the magic.


The instantaneous is referring to the magic that creates the beams, not the beams themselves. The beams are the effects, which can last longer.

In the nicest possible way, this is utter hogwash.

If the duration of the spell does not refer to the duration of the spell effect but instead refers to the duration of the 'magic that creates the spell effect', then how do we know how long the spell effect lasts for?

If 'the magic that creates the spell effect' and 'the spell effect' are different things, and 'duration' refers to the former but not the latter, then the 'magic that creates the beams' lasts for an instant but we don't know how long the beams last. What happens to the beams afterward? Is the battleground littered with spent beams that can be repaired and used again?

If this is true for one spell, it's true for all spells. The 'magic that creates the spell effect' of mirror image lasts for one minute, but the 1 minute duration does not apply to the 'spell effect' of 'three illusory duplicates', so how long do they last?

How do we know when the 'spell effect' ends, if 'duration' does not refer to 'spell effect'?

[GiantOctopodes]

When in debate, you don't use the arguments that your opponents are not using, you use the one's they are using. I'm debating plenty of people who bring up JC's tweets. I'm not on Twitter, so the only reason I'm even aware of their existence is because someone else posted them.

So, we can either use his tweets, or not use his tweets and just use the words written in the book, in conjunction with our reason and our understanding of what those words mean (in an edition which is proud of using 'natural language').

If we use his tweets, then he has tweeted that there is a difference between 'attack' and 'attack roll', that a single 'attack' can involve multiple 'attack rolls' to resolve, and that we know which is called for just by reading the words. These truths about his game are what the RAW of Whirlwind Attack are compared to. The fact that he rules that Whirlwind Attack is a single attack involving multiple attack rolls stems from the RAW of WA saying 'attack' and 'attack roll' in a way that must lead to that conclusion. Since eldritch blast uses 'attack' and 'attack roll' in the same way, then those rules must apply to eldritch blast just as surely as they apply to WA.

The other tweet does not say if eldritch blast is one type or the other; it just gave a general rule so we can work it out ourselves, not only for this one spell but for all spells and features.

The tweet about Repelling Blast indicates that he rules the blasts as sequential, but does not indicate that the caster can see if one blast kills the target before choosing the next. Indeed, although he says that the 'first' beam can move the target out of range for the second, he does not say that the caster can re-direct the beams if this is the case.

Can JC be wrong about his own game? Well, as soon as he contradicts himself he has shown himself to be wrong.

If we don't use his tweets, we are left with the rulebook. Cause and effect, 'casting' the spell is the cause, the 'spell effect' is the effect. Cause must precede effect. The casting process must be complete before the spell duration starts, because the 'casting' causes the spell. That section of the spellcasting chapter doesn't suggest a difference between 'unable to provide the components' and 'have not provided the components, but we could if we wanted to'. Being 'able' to provide the components is not enough, you have to actually provide them, and until you do, you have not provided them and the spell cannot be cast. You cannot have the spell work by promising to provide the components later!

We also have the 'instantaneous' duration. We also know that this type of spell cannot be dispelled. Why? Is it because the magical fabric of these spells is somehow resistant to being dispelled? No, it's because the magic has come and gone 'in an instant'.

We must assume that all the words mean the same in the book as they do in 'natural language', unless we have a reason to believe otherwise. We know that 'instant' cannot merely mean 'undispellable', because then the sentence would read 'cannot be dispelled because the magic has come and gone in an undispellable'; also, 'instantaneous' is a 'duration', therefore the word must refer to a span of time.

What span of time? How long is an 'instant'? Literally, an 'instant' is 'an infinitely small, but non-zero, span of time'. The consequence of that is that this time span cannot be divided into smaller parts, therefore multiple things happening in an instant must be simultaneous. Is 'instant' always used that way in 'natural language'? No, it is used imprecisely to just mean 'practically instant'; so short a span of time that no person could wait 'til half-way through the instant, see the result, and change his mind about how to target the rest of the instant.

If an 'instant' were slow enough to let you shoot one beam, see if the target dies or not, then use that information to help you choose who to target with the next, four times in succession, then first: this is no kind of 'instant', and second: this would be plenty of time to target it with dispel magic after you shoot one beam and before you shoot the next. But we know that you can't, and we know that the reason you can't is because the magic comes and goes in an instant!

Does 'instantaneous' inevitably result in the beams being 'simultaneous'? If 'instant' is used literally: yes. If 'instant' is used to mean 'practically instant', then this results in the beams being 'practically simultaneous', maybe shot sequentially, but happening so fast the caster cannot make individual targeting decisions during the instant based on the results he can perceive.

In real life, a machine gun fires 600-900 rounds per minute. That's 10-15 rounds per second. No-one can doubt that these rounds are fired one-at-a-time from the barrel; you can't have three bullets travel side-by-side down the same barrel! So these rounds are definitely sequential. Does that mean that the machine gunner can see if any single bullet kills the target, and change targets, for every single one of those 10-15 bullets? No.

And that is in one second. 'Instant', in natural language in the context of a six second combat round, is faster than a whole second. If it was slower, then it would be slow enough to be targeted by dispel magic. Four beams in an 'instant' is at least as fast as a machine gun. There is no way, even with the 'practically instant' but sequential beams, that the caster can wait to see what one beam did before choosing the target for the next beam (four times consecutively!) while the magic still 'comes and goes in an instant' too quickly to be dispelled.

So you accept that they're sequential. Great! Progress. Now, if they're sequential, and if you're resolving the effects of an attack (which you are doing if you're pushing a target using repelling blast) before moving on to the next attack, please note the first step in making an attack. What is that step? Choose a target. If you are not beginning the next attack before you finish resolving the previous one, then you are not choosing the target for the next attack, until you finish the previous one, by necessity. It doesn't matter if such a thing is realistic. In fact, please note that an Action Surging Fighter can fire 8 arrows in his turn, which lasts at most 6 seconds. All of those arrows can be shot at different targets up to 600 feet away. The arrows fly with a speed of at most 300 feet per second, so it would require 2 seconds to reach their target. As such, if the Fighter gets to make the attack, see how it goes, fire his next arrow, rinse and repeat, by necessity the process should take *at minimum* 16 seconds for those 8 arrows. Thus it's physically impossible for the fighter to resolve each attack before moving on to the next one, with foreknowledge as to what happened with the previous attack.

And yet, that's exactly what happens. It does not matter what's realistic or reasonable or anything of the sort. It matters what the rules of the game are. And per the rules of the game, you fully resolve one attack, and then and only then move on to the process of making the next attack, so by necessity you do not choose your target (the first step in making an attack) until you are done resolving the effects of the previous attack (the 3rd step in making that attack). That's what it means to be sequential.

[Arial Black]

So you accept that they're sequential. Great! Progress. Now, if they're sequential, and if you're resolving the effects of an attack (which you are doing if you're pushing a target using repelling blast) before moving on to the next attack, please note the first step in making an attack. What is that step? Choose a target. If you are not beginning the next attack before you finish resolving the previous one, then you are not choosing the target for the next attack, until you finish the previous one, by necessity. It doesn't matter if such a thing is realistic. In fact, please note that an Action Surging Fighter can fire 8 arrows in his turn, which lasts at most 6 seconds. All of those arrows can be shot at different targets up to 600 feet away. The arrows fly with a speed of at most 300 feet per second, so it would require 2 seconds to reach their target. As such, if the Fighter gets to make the attack, see how it goes, fire his next arrow, rinse and repeat, by necessity the process should take *at minimum* 16 seconds for those 8 arrows. Thus it's physically impossible for the fighter to resolve each attack before moving on to the next one, with foreknowledge as to what happened with the previous attack.

And yet, that's exactly what happens. It does not matter what's realistic or reasonable or anything of the sort. It matters what the rules of the game are. And per the rules of the game, you fully resolve one attack, and then and only then move on to the process of making the next attack, so by necessity you do not choose your target (the first step in making an attack) until you are done resolving the effects of the previous attack (the 3rd step in making that attack). That's what it means to be sequential.

'Checking to see if the target is dead' is not one of the three steps of Making an Attack. Even if the attacks are sequential, there is no way to know what happened to the target until after the target gets damaged, and any attack or targeting that takes place after that, cannot be in the same instant that the spell exists for. The spell begins and ends in the same instant, and that is not true of arrows from a bow.

[GiantOctopodes]

'Checking to see if the target is dead' is not one of the three steps of Making an Attack. Even if the attacks are sequential, there is no way to know what happened to the target until after the target gets damaged, and any attack or targeting that takes place after that, cannot be in the same instant that the spell exists for. The spell begins and ends in the same instant, and that is not true of arrows from a bow.

I've already agreed with you that the DM is not under any obligation to tell you whether or not the target is dead, so we are not in disagreement here. Nor are you under any obligation to play in his game, so I doubt many DMs fail to tell their players whether or not the person they just hit dropped, but that's a whole separate issue, your point that the DM is not required to provide you that information per RAW is valid.

In terms of beginning and ending in the same instant, perhaps you missed my point. The archer in question physically cannot know whether or not he hit his target and what effects* the attacks had before making the next attack. There just isn't enough time in a round for that to occur. And yet, he does, because that's what the rules say under the structure of making an attack. You are arguing that the Eldritch Blast caster physically cannot know the results of the previous attack before making the next one, because there just isn't enough time in "an instant" for that to occur. I'm saying it doesn't matter if there's not enough time. You still follow the rules under the structure of making an attack, just like the archer.

Edit:
*And by effects, I mean the rider effects from the attacks, which are specifically resolved in the 3rd step of making an attack, whether it be repelling blast, battlemaster maneuvers like pushing attack or trip attack, for a paladin whether or not Smite was used on it, or whatever else applies upon hitting, with the player specifically making the choice *once it hits* whether or not those effects are applied and how, *and* knowing the results of those rider effects, all before making the next attack!

[MeeposFire]

I think it unwise to rely on that, as I would say that it isn't the case for many spells - those with area effects.

Generally this does not apply as AOE spells tend to be save based which means no attack rolls at all in this edition.