Eldritch Blast - Simultaneous or No?

[quinron]

This thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?497679-is-Repelling-Blast-good) has gotten me wondering: am I missing something in the book and/or has there been any official statement on whether eldritch blast's beams all hit at once or happen in sequence? The spell description itself doesn't have a clarification the way magic missile does.

[RSP]

I believe Crawford had a ruling on SA that indicated the blasts were not simultaneous. The intent is that the blasts happen like multiple attacks; you can resolve the first before deciding on the target for the next.

However I don't believe you can move between blasts.

[Kane0]

Eldritch Shotgun is an invocation. By default EBs are like hand lasers, one pew at a time.

[MeeposFire]

I believe Crawford had a ruling on SA that indicated the blasts were not simultaneous. The intent is that the blasts happen like multiple attacks; you can resolve the first before deciding on the target for the next.

However I don't believe you can move between blasts.

You cannot move between blasts because the ability to move between attacks is only stated to work with weapons specifically and is not a part of the general attack rules.

[Sabeta]

You cannot move between blasts because the ability to move between attacks is only stated to work with weapons specifically and is not a part of the general attack rules.

EB is performed with the "Cast a Spell" option, and you cannot move while Casting a Spell. Therefore, you cannot move while casting EB.

[quinron]

Thanks. I never had it in my head that someone might try to move between blasts, but some of the warlock invocations in particular have a pretty significant change in effect if you can chain blasts back-to-back (as with Repelling Blast in the linked thread), which would work completely differently if they all hit simultaneously.

[SharkForce]

general rules for attacks is that you fully resolve one before starting the next. eldritch blast gives you up to 4 ranged spell attacks, which are still attacks, and there is no specific rule to override the general one.

[Tanarii]

Eldritch Shotgun is an invocation.Okay, now we need to do a write up ...

[RickAllison]

Okay, now we need to do a write up ...

I've always figured that warlock would be a great class to do a Gadgeteer/Terminator with a multi-purpose firearm as its focus like Jak II's morph fun. The basic form is a handgun that becomes more of a submachinegun as it levels, Eldritch Spear is a scope and a barrel extension, Repelling Blast is a larger caliber barrel for more knock back, and the invocation for more damage adds a longer magazine and a blowback mechanism to the barrel end (think anti-tank rifles). Then add special ammunition or underslung attachments for other spells, body armor for Armor of Agathys.

Basically taking Warlock goodies and putting them in terms of a modern soldier.

[Vogonjeltz]

This thread has gotten me wondering: am I missing something in the book and/or has there been any official statement on whether eldritch blast's beams all hit at once or happen in sequence? The spell description itself doesn't have a clarification the way magic missile does.

The beams, per the spell description, are all generated on casting the spell. So target selection and dice rolling for 'to hit' should all happen simultaneously.


I believe Crawford had a ruling on SA that indicated the blasts were not simultaneous. The intent is that the blasts happen like multiple attacks; you can resolve the first before deciding on the target for the next.

However I don't believe you can move between blasts.

No, he just stated the general rule on when something is simultaneous in response to a question on Eldritch Blast without actually saying yea or nay, leaving it up to the reader to come to an answer on their own.

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


general rules for attacks is that you fully resolve one before starting the next. eldritch blast gives you up to 4 ranged spell attacks, which are still attacks, and there is no specific rule to override the general one.

The general structure of an attack is select target, apply modifiers, make rolls. Nowhere does it say attacks must be resolved in a particular order or before another attack is made.

In practice I find most people do that all one at a time, but if there were multiple beams targeting a single creature where the same modifiers apply, it's equally valid to proceed from targeting to rolling for all beams.

[Arial Black]

A consequence of the spell duration='instantaneous' is that there is no possible time 'after' you shoot a beam, see what it does, and then use that observation to decide who to shoot with the next.

This means that you decide the target for each beam first, and then resolve them; simultaneously in-game but at the table you may roll the dice however you like but apply the results simultaneously.

[SharkForce]

A consequence of the spell duration='instantaneous' is that there is no possible time 'after' you shoot a beam, see what it does, and then use that observation to decide who to shoot with the next.

This means that you decide the target for each beam first, and then resolve them; simultaneously in-game but at the table you may roll the dice however you like but apply the results simultaneously.

no, it really doesn't. it isn't literally instantaneous any more than fireball is literally instantaneous and blows up on your own position every time you cast it because it has zero time to travel. all it means is that the spell is not active outside of your turn.

[Arial Black]

no, it really doesn't. it isn't literally instantaneous any more than fireball is literally instantaneous and blows up on your own position every time you cast it because it has zero time to travel. all it means is that the spell is not active outside of your turn.

Oh, sure, it isn't literally instantaneous (an infinitely small but non-zero span of time), it's just practically instantaneous (too small a span of time to do other things during that instant).

If you start a spell, observe its effects, then use that information to direct later parts of the same spell, then that is certainly not literally OR practically instantaneous. What you're wanting is to totally ignore the written duration for your own benefit.

[SharkForce]

Oh, sure, it isn't literally instantaneous (an infinitely small but non-zero span of time), it's just practically instantaneous (too small a span of time to do other things during that instant).

If you start a spell, observe its effects, then use that information to direct later parts of the same spell, then that is certainly not literally OR practically instantaneous. What you're wanting is to totally ignore the written duration for your own benefit.

you no more have to follow some weird arbitrary house rule on eldritch blast than you need to lead your targets with fireball. instantaneous just means shorter than your turn. the magic only lasts briefly, but nowhere does it list a set amount of time, though we can certainly infer that it lasts less than a round and even that it does not last outside your turn. it isn't a precise amount of time because it will vary; an ice storm spell is "instantaneous" but likely does not mean to imply that all the ice falls in 1/100th of a second.

we know, for example, that "instantaneous" can last long enough for you to ask a question and receive an answer because you can do that during the "instantaneous" duration of the divination spell.

based on the fact that acid arrow does not inflict bludgeoning damage (or at least piercing damage), we can reasonably assume that it isn't traveling 90 feet in a tiny fraction of a second either.

on the other hand, a misty step probably does transport you in a tiny fraction of a second. because instantaneous is not a specific measurement of time, and especially is not a specific measurement of time in D&D. it just means the magic is not around for very long, whether that means 1/100000000000th of a second or 2 seconds or maybe even 4-5 seconds, depending on the specific situation.

[Tanarii]

Depending on how you declare and resolve actions, instantaneous usually means "on your action", doesn't it? Or at least, "for the duration of resolving your action".

[RSP]

Vogonjeltz,
Here's the quote from Crawford on SA I referred to earlier:

"If you get 3 attacks with eldritch blast, can the first attack push a target out of range of the next two attacks? — Jeremy Soard (@JeremySoard) June 26, 2015 Yes, Repelling Blast can push a target out of the range of subsequent beams from eldritch blast."

The question clearly asks about the first attack of three of a single casting of EB and the effect of Repelling Blast occurring prior to the subsequent two attacks of that same casting, to which Crawford responds, yes, the first effect occurs prior to the second attack being made.

Feel free to rule it differently at your table, however, there is a ruling on this and it occurs in order, with each attack being fully resolved, including knock back, before the next blast is rolled.

[Arial Black]

When your wife says, "I'll be down in a minute honey!", she doesn't literally mean 'one minute: 60 seconds'. In this context, 'a minute' is not a precise amount of time.

Therefore, when the spell duration says 'one minute' then this is an approximate amount of time and therefore the spell lasts about eight hours, right?

The PHB does have a definition of the 'instantaneous' duration actually: the magic comes and goes 'in an instant'. That's what it says, and that's what it means as surely as a duration of 'one minute' means one minute not eight hours.

An 'instant' is an infinitely small (but non-zero) period of time. Just because people can use the word casually and imprecisely doesn't give us a reason to use it imprecisely as a spell duration.

[Tanarii]

So? What's that got to do with not being able to resolve each one after the other? Instantaneous doesn't mean simultaneous. They aren't synonyms.

[R.Shackleford]

Okay, now we need to do a write up ...

10' cone, each creature takes 1d4 force damage? Does not work with agonizing blast?

[Tanarii]

10' cone, each creature takes 1d4 force damage? Does not work with agonizing blast?Scaling? that could work. Hit three targets it's superior. I'd allow agonizing 1/time it applies normally. Ie 1 at 2nd, 2 at 5th, etc.

[Arial Black]

So? What's that got to do with not being able to resolve each one after the other? Instantaneous doesn't mean simultaneous. They aren't synonyms.

Although the two words are not strictly synonyms, one is an unavoidable consequence of the other.

If two events occur in a single instant then they must occur simultaneously. If the events were to occur consecutively, that would be two separate instants.

If a spell allows you to shoot several beams during your turn, it may well be that each individual beam would be instantaneous but the duration of the spell would have to encompass all of those separate instants; the spell duration would be '1 turn' or '1 round'.

Now, if we were to understand 'instantaneous' as being practically instantaneous rather than literally instantaneous, then multiple events could occur consecutively (rather than simultaneously), but all of those events would have to occur so quickly that there would be no time to stop and think before each discrete event. If you had that much time, then that would not be a single instant no matter how casually you were using the word. It's like 'In a minute!' doesn't have to mean precisely 60 seconds when used casually, but that doesn't mean that '8 hours' is a reasonable interpretation of 'about a minute'.

A good analogy is an automatic rifle that can fire either a single bullet or burst fire, depending how long the trigger is pulled. In a casual interpretation of 'instantaneous' as 'practically (rather than literally) instantaneous', then squeezing off four bullets in a single 'instant' results in four consecutive (rather than simultaneous) shots. However, you decide before you know the results of the shots (did I hit/kill them?) whether you are aiming at a single target or waving the rifle around to try to hit several targets.

If you were to fire one bullet, see if it hit, use that information to decide whether to aim at the same target or at his mates, and then fire a second bullet, then that is not 'instantaneous', practically OR literally!

Whether you envision the duration of eldritch blast to be literally (therefore simultaneous) instantaneous or practically (therefore consecutive) instantaneous, you must choose which beam is aimed at which opponent before any of the beams are actually resolved. If your warlock were to wait to check what the first beam did then the spell duration would have ended before you could shoot the next beam.

[Mellack]

Some spells that do not make sense if they literally only last an instant:
Acid splash: acid takes time to react with flesh
Burning Hands: an instant of flame will not heat you enough to hurt.
Cone of cold: as above
Divination: need time to ask and get answer
Druidcraft: how could you recognize falling leaves if only for an instant? I think it would take longer to demonstrate they are falling.
Fireball: as above
esentially any fire or cold spell, it takes time for heat to transfer
Ice Storm: if it were only an instant, they would not have time to fall

There are probably more. I think that instant is probably a misnomer. It just means in a brief amount of time.

[RSP]

Time comparisons between the in game actions and real world don't always work so well.

Think of this: you have 6 seconds to attack. Are you really capable of effectively hitting someone, assessing the damage and effect of that hit, decide the person hit is now unconscious, move 20 feet, effectively hit someone else, assess the damage and effect of that hit, decide that person is now unconscious as well, move 10 more feet, and effectively hit someone with your off hand?

In real life you might be able to do a flurry of attacks and moving, but you would never really be able to assess the effectiveness of each hit in such a sort time span.

Same goes with EB. The game calls it an instant, but allows you, the player, to assess the effect of each attack before making the next one.

[RickAllison]

Some spells that do not make sense if they literally only last an instant:
Acid splash: acid takes time to react with flesh
Burning Hands: an instant of flame will not heat you enough to hurt.
Cone of cold: as above
Divination: need time to ask and get answer
Druidcraft: how could you recognize falling leaves if only for an instant? I think it would take longer to demonstrate they are falling.
Fireball: as above
esentially any fire or cold spell, it takes time for heat to transfer
Ice Storm: if it were only an instant, they would not have time to fall

There are probably more. I think that instant is probably a misnomer. It just means in a brief amount of time.

Oooooo, Green-Flame Blade! If the effect is instantaneous, then the sword strike must be instantaneous as well. That means it must have sufficient energy to actually break the speed of light!

[Millstone85]

I first asked myself this question when I considered using Repelling Blast at close range.
If simultaneous, all attack rolls would be done with disadvantage.
If sequential, a hit would push the enemy away and subsequent attack rolls would be done without disadvantage.

[quinron]

I first asked myself this question when I considered using Repelling Blast at close range.
If simultaneous, all attack rolls would be done with disadvantage.
If sequential, a hit would push the enemy away and subsequent attack rolls would be done without disadvantage.

This is part of the problem. There's also the major difference between the possibilities for a top-tier Repelling Blast: if all 4 blasts hit the same target, is it pushed back 10 feet or 40 feet?

[Arial Black]

Some spells that do not make sense if they literally only last an instant:

...which is why 'practically instantaneous' is a better fit.


Acid splash: acid takes time to react with flesh
Burning Hands: an instant of flame will not heat you enough to hurt.
Cone of cold: as above

For these, the 'instantaneous' duration indicates that, as far as game mechanics go, there is 'before' the spell, 'after' the spell, but no usable 'during' the spell; it is a point in time rather than a span of time during which you can do other things. You cannot wait until 'half-way through the fireball' when you can teleport out having only taken a portion of the fire damage; there is a 'before' you are damaged and an 'after'.


Divination: need time to ask and get answer

How long does God need to give you the info that He wants you to have? Any such conversation is not in real time in the game world.


Druidcraft: how could you recognize falling leaves if only for an instant? I think it would take longer to demonstrate they are falling.
Fireball: as above
esentially any fire or cold spell, it takes time for heat to transfer
Ice Storm: if it were only an instant, they would not have time to fall

There are probably more. I think that instant is probably a misnomer. It just means in a brief amount of time.

Yes. Too brief to split into parts separated by enough time to observe/make decisions.

[Arial Black]

This is part of the problem. There's also the major difference between the possibilities for a top-tier Repelling Blast: if all 4 blasts hit the same target, is it pushed back 10 feet or 40 feet?

I agree, it is a problem.

I think that the designers of 5E sometimes play fast and loose with logic in order to make playing the game simpler. For example, it makes absolutely no sense that you can decide, after your sword's damage reduced an enemy to zero (when you fully intended to kill the guy), that the blow was non-lethal after all! But that's how 5E does non-lethal damage.

The question we ask ourselves is: is this ease of play worth the inherent absurdity? Well, it depends. We judge this on a case-by-case basis.

For me, 5E's rule for non-lethal damage is worth it, because I've experienced the hassle of the equivalent rules in previous editions.

But, again for me, deliberately misinterpreting 'instantaneous' to meaning '6 seconds or so' is not worth it. I see no advantage in allowing creatures to do stuff inexplicably during an instant! In previous editions it was spelled out that the consequence of instantaneous multi-part spells was that the parts were simultaneous, and it wasn't an issue. It made sense AND was easy to play. Suddenly allowing creatures to know the result of each part, when it is against reason to do so, is not 'better' or easier to play than the previous way.

Tweets aside, the Rules As Written do not challenge the previous definition of 'instantaneous', nor the 'simultaneous' consequence of the instantaneous duration.

[Tanarii]

Although the two words are not strictly synonyms, one is an unavoidable consequence of the other.No. Something can be simultaneous yet take quite a lot of time. Similarly, something can be instantaneous but not the parts of it can be sequential, not simultaneous. One does not follow from the other.

I agree that doesn't necessarily mean that you can choose the target between resolving each hit/miss. But neither does it automatically follow from instantaneous that you cannot.

[SharkForce]

...which is why 'practically instantaneous' is a better fit.



For these, the 'instantaneous' duration indicates that, as far as game mechanics go, there is 'before' the spell, 'after' the spell, but no usable 'during' the spell; it is a point in time rather than a span of time during which you can do other things. You cannot wait until 'half-way through the fireball' when you can teleport out having only taken a portion of the fire damage; there is a 'before' you are damaged and an 'after'.



How long does God need to give you the info that He wants you to have? Any such conversation is not in real time in the game world.



Yes. Too brief to split into parts separated by enough time to observe/make decisions.

- ice storm isn't *practically* instantaneous either. the ice does not all fall within a split second. neither are the majority of those other spells. practically instantaneous doesn't work based on some things we know are "instantaneous" in D&D, because there is a very clearly perceivable amount of time, in many cases several seconds worth.

- how is there no usable period during the spell? can you not catch the falling leaves from druidcraft because they slam into the ground at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light? there's time enough to make a melee attack during a booming blade or greenflame blade spell. a rogue has sufficient time to evade a fireball. clearly, there is in fact a period of time "during" the spell when things happen. in the case of eldritch blast, that includes you making up to 4 attacks, and again, as there is no specific rule indicating otherwise, those attacks follow the general attack rules; you resolve the first attack fully before the second attack is made, and so on.

- the time for the answer is irrelevant. you have to ask a question. you get an answer (some forms of which are almost certainly going to take more than a tiny fraction of a second to convey; an omen such as an animal that frequently represents your deity leaping down the path you are being recommended to take, for example, is not likely to be something that happens in less than several seconds, and yet is a perfectly viable form of answer for the spell to give you. (edit: either way, you asking the question takes a much longer than "instantaneous" period of time, whether you mean literal or practical instantaneity)

- as noted, there *is* time for people to observe and make decisions when it comes to "instantaneous" spells. a shield expert can put a shield between themselves and a disintegrate spell. a rogue or monk can evade a fireball, and anyone can make a saving throw. a wild sorcerer can bend luck to help you make your save (or to help make someone else fail their save). and so on.

based on the spells that we know are listed as "instantaneous", we are forced to assume that instantaneous can (in D&D 5e at least) mean a period of several seconds. it doesn't necessarily always mean that, but it can.

[Tanarii]

as there is no specific rule indicating otherwise, those attacks follow the general attack rules; you resolve the first attack fully before the second attack is made, and so on.
Page reference?

[Erys]

I first asked myself this question when I considered using Repelling Blast at close range.
If simultaneous, all attack rolls would be done with disadvantage.
If sequential, a hit would push the enemy away and subsequent attack rolls would be done without disadvantage.


This is part of the problem. There's also the major difference between the possibilities for a top-tier Repelling Blast: if all 4 blasts hit the same target, is it pushed back 10 feet or 40 feet?

I am at a loss how this is still being questioned when the tweet was posted in this thread that tells you the intent of the spell.

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

Repelling Blast can knock someone out of range of subsequent EB bolts, it will also knock someone out of range so you no longer have disadvantage on your following bolts and it also means you move them up to 40' back if you have 4 bolts.

[Tanarii]

I am at a loss how this is still being questioned when the tweet was posted in this thread that tells you the intent of the spell.

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/614588258404597760
Because lots of people don't accept Sage Advice as a rule despite it being 'official RAI'. But that's actually not relevant in this case, because that's not SA you linked, so ...

because JCs tweets explicitly aren't official, unless they later make it into Sage Advice. They're how you get his opinion on something. Which carries weight with some people (including me) who want his opinion. And not with others.

[RickAllison]

Because lots of people don't accept Sage Advice as a rule despite it being 'official RAI'. But that's actually not relevant in this case, because that's not SA you linked, so ...

because JCs tweets explicitly aren't official, unless they later make it into Sage Advice. They're how you get his opinion on something. Which carries weight with some people (including me) who want his opinion. And not with others.

A relevant quote for this is from the Sage Advice Compendium:


Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made
in Sage Advice. The public statements of the D&D team, or
anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings;
they are advice. One exception: the game’s rules manager,
Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), can make official
rulings and usually does so in Sage Advice.

So here is what we get from them in terms of what is considered official RAI:

1) Non-JC tweets are not official
2) JC can make official RAI (he is usually good about separating personal rulings he prefers by prefacing them with something like "I would rule...")
3) These rulings are usually done through the Sage advice columns
4) Given that the rulings are only usually issued through the columns and that his Twitter handle is included, it is possible for him to issue official RAI through Tweets.

So everything in the Sage Advice columns is official RAI, while many of his Tweets could possibly be official RAI.

[Tanarii]

4) Given that the rulings are only usually issued through the columns and that his Twitter handle is included, it is possible for him to issue official RAI through Tweets.

So everything in the Sage Advice columns is official RAI, while many of his Tweets could possibly be official RAI.Huh. For some reason every time I've read that before I've come out of it with 'Sage Advice, and only Sage Advice, is official.'

Thanks for the correction.

[RickAllison]

Huh. For some reason every time I've read that before I've come out of it with 'Sage Advice, and only Sage Advice, is official.'

Thanks for the correction.

Absolutely!

However it does open the can of worms that anyone who doesn't like the tweets can still just say "It's not necessarily RAI until it is in the column." So same effect still :smallbiggrin:

[Tanarii]

Absolutely!

However it does open the can of worms that anyone who doesn't like the tweets can still just say "It's not necessarily RAI until it is in the column." So same effect still :smallbiggrin:
Ja ja, this has been the perennial deal with Sage Advice and its writer since forever. I've turned around my normal position of 'it's a bunch of BS just ignore it' in this edition, purely based on the fact that I believe JC is making an honest and concerted and researched effort (ie talking to the other developers) to determine what was actually intended, as opposed to just making up his own house-rule on the spot. That's so new and refreshing compared to what Sage Advice used to be that's he's totally won over my bitter crusty ol' heart.

[quinron]

More importantly, though, the tweet says "attacks." Normally I wouldn't mince words this much, but given how the major errata included things like, "unarmed strikes are a weapon attack but are not a weapon," the specific wording is significant. Eldritch blast requires that you make spell attack rolls, but it's not considered an attack - it's considered a spell.

However, after considering, I'd say biggest argument against simultaneous hits is pattern, considering only one spell involves simultaneous blasts (magic missile, of course), while no other spell involving multiple blasts (like scorching ray) specifies one way or the other.

[Millstone85]

More importantly, though, the tweet says "attacks." Normally I wouldn't mince words this much, but given how the major errata included things like, "unarmed strikes are a weapon attack but are not a weapon," the specific wording is significant. Eldritch blast requires that you make spell attack rolls, but it's not considered an attack - it's considered a spell.
If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.Also note that the tweet was in answer to a question about eldritch blast.
The very same question as your thread, in fact.

However, I think your last sentence is correct in a way.
The spell eldritch blast is not an attack, it has an attack. And then it gets three more.

[Arial Black]

No. Something can be simultaneous yet take quite a lot of time. Similarly, something can be instantaneous but not the parts of it can be sequential, not simultaneous. One does not follow from the other.

I agree that doesn't necessarily mean that you can choose the target between resolving each hit/miss. But neither does it automatically follow from instantaneous that you cannot.

If we understand it as literally instantaneous, then it has an infinitely small span of time, so therefore literally cannot be one after the other, but must be simultaneous.

If events took place one after the other, then the first event begins, lasts for a span of time, ends, then the next event begins, lasts for a span of time, then ends. If the total span of time is infinitely small then two consecutive events cannot take place within it, unless the duration of each event is also infinitely small. In that case, the two events occur simultaneously.

[Arial Black]

- ice storm isn't *practically* instantaneous either. the ice does not all fall within a split second. neither are the majority of those other spells. practically instantaneous doesn't work based on some things we know are "instantaneous" in D&D, because there is a very clearly perceivable amount of time, in many cases several seconds worth.

As far as game mechanics go, the event (ice storm, fireball) does not have a time span. You cannot wait until you have taken some fire damage, walk out of the fireball at some point during it, then claim to only take a portion of the damage.


- how is there no usable period during the spell? can you not catch the falling leaves from druidcraft because they slam into the ground at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light? there's time enough to make a melee attack during a booming blade or greenflame blade spell. a rogue has sufficient time to evade a fireball.

The attack required for BB/G-FB is part of the casting time, not the duration. Evasion halves the incoming damage without interrupting the duration of the spell.


clearly, there is in fact a period of time "during" the spell when things happen. in the case of eldritch blast, that includes you making up to 4 attacks, and again, as there is no specific rule indicating otherwise, those attacks follow the general attack rules; you resolve the first attack fully before the second attack is made, and so on.

First, the 'specific rule that says otherwise' is that the duration is instantaneous! Second, there is no such 'general rule' that attacks:-

* must occur sequentially, not simultaneously

* must be resolved completely before the next is aimed

[orange74]

The PHB defines exactly what a duration of "instantaneous" means:

"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."

I think it's significant that the only mechanical effect of this duration that is specifically mentioned is the fact that instantaneous spells can't be dispelled.

Now, at first reading, "its magic exists only for an instant" could be viewed to support the "all at once" theory. After all, these magical force beams could blink into existence already possessing a heading and speed; the spell itself could be literally instantaneous, and it would only be the non-dispellable consequences of the spell that linger past that split second.

If you look at other spells with instantaneous duration, however, it's clear that "magical" effects and control can and do linger past the stated duration. Animate Dead gives you 24 hours of telepathic control of your undead minions. Feeblemind lasts until the target succeeds on its monthly saving throw, at which point "the spell ends." A humanoid killed by Finger of Death becomes a zombie permanently under your control. I could go on, but if you care, you can word search the SRD for "instantaneous" just as well as I can.

From the internal evidence—which I would say is the only evidence, outside of errata/SA/etc., that is particularly compelling—it seems that "instantaneous" means that some kind of effect (created by magic and potentially "magical" in nature but nonetheless not subject to being dispelled) is created instantly and persists until it has run its course, which could take fractions of a second or hours or years. We can discuss what "instantaneous" means in English, but in game terms, it seems pretty clear that it means that it starts right away and you can't dispel it. If an instantaneous spell can grant you the ability to control a zombie forever, there is nothing about the instantaneous duration per se that would prevent the beams of Eldritch Blast from being targeted sequentially.

[Arial Black]

The PHB defines exactly what a duration of "instantaneous" means:

"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."

I think it's significant that the only mechanical effect of this duration that is specifically mentioned is the fact that instantaneous spells can't be dispelled.

Now, at first reading, "its magic exists only for an instant" could be viewed to support the "all at once" theory. After all, these magical force beams could blink into existence already possessing a heading and speed; the spell itself could be literally instantaneous, and it would only be the non-dispellable consequences of the spell that linger past that split second.

If you look at other spells with instantaneous duration, however, it's clear that "magical" effects and control can and do linger past the stated duration. Animate Dead gives you 24 hours of telepathic control of your undead minions. Feeblemind lasts until the target succeeds on its monthly saving throw, at which point "the spell ends." A humanoid killed by Finger of Death becomes a zombie permanently under your control. I could go on, but if you care, you can word search the SRD for "instantaneous" just as well as I can.

From the internal evidence—which I would say is the only evidence, outside of errata/SA/etc., that is particularly compelling—it seems that "instantaneous" means that some kind of effect (created by magic and potentially "magical" in nature but nonetheless not subject to being dispelled) is created instantly and persists until it has run its course, which could take fractions of a second or hours or years. We can discuss what "instantaneous" means in English, but in game terms, it seems pretty clear that it means that it starts right away and you can't dispel it. If an instantaneous spell can grant you the ability to control a zombie forever, there is nothing about the instantaneous duration per se that would prevent the beams of Eldritch Blast from being targeted sequentially.

A well-stated, but nonetheless fatally flawed, argument.


Of course an instantaneous spell can have lasting effects! That's how healing magic works!

Even creating a zombie via raise dead has a lasting effect, but this doesn't mean that the spell duration lasts as long as the zombie lasts!

Furthermore, you cannot ignore what words mean. You cannot ignore the rule that 'the magic lasts only an instant' by pretending that 'instant' (indicating an infinitely small time span) somehow doesn't refer to a time span at all but instead means 'un-dispellable'! If they meant these spells to be un-dispellable they would use a word that means that (instead of a word meaning a span of time) and they wouldn't put the fact that it cannot be dispelled as 'the duration'!

No, the reason that instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled is not because they are made out of a new kind of tough magic, but because the magic itself has come and gone before it could be targetted with a dispel.

[orange74]

A well-stated, but nonetheless fatally flawed, argument.

Of course an instantaneous spell can have lasting effects! That's how healing magic works!

Even creating a zombie via raise dead has a lasting effect, but this doesn't mean that the spell duration lasts as long as the zombie lasts!

Furthermore, you cannot ignore what words mean. You cannot ignore the rule that 'the magic lasts only an instant' by pretending that 'instant' (indicating an infinitely small time span) somehow doesn't refer to a time span at all but instead means 'un-dispellable'! If they meant these spells to be un-dispellable they would use a word that means that (instead of a word meaning a span of time) and they wouldn't put the fact that it cannot be dispelled as 'the duration'!

No, the reason that instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled is not because they are made out of a new kind of tough magic, but because the magic itself has come and gone before it could be targetted with a dispel.
I think you're missing my point. There's a reason none of the examples I gave are healing spells; that's a pretty clear example of spells that accomplish something immediately and leave it accomplished.

The spells I mentioned don't work that way. You create a zombie with animate dead. That happens instantaneously, the corpse is just lying there, decomposing away... poof! it's a zombie, shambling around and groaning "BRAAAAAINNNNS." If that was all it did, my argument would be just as lousy as you say it is. Lousier even.

But wait, there's more—and this is the important part. For 24 hours, you have telepathic control of the zombie, and then after that you don't any more. This is not a permanent effect; you didn't create a zombie that is hard-wired to be your telepathic pawn. This is a temporary, and (I think it's fair to say) magical effect which continues past the instantaneous duration of the spell.

Feeblemind says right in the spell description, "At the end of every 30 days, the creature can repeat its saving throw against this spell. If it succeeds on its saving throw, the spell ends." The creature is repeating a saving throw against a spell of instantaneous duration that was cast at least 30 days ago! And if it succeeds, the spell—duration "instantaneous"—ends. Ends!

In other words, if an instantaneous spell can "end" with a saving throw made months after the spell was cast, or give you the ability to mentally control a zombie for 24 hours (but no more), I don't see how the duration "instantaneous" can mean that you can't control a beam of crackling energy for a couple of seconds.

[SharkForce]

Page reference?

hmmm... trying to find a more clearly stated source, but it's in the combat section about making an attack. the first step is choosing a target, the last step is resolving the attack. so to make multiple attacks, you make the first one (choose target, do stuff in middle, resolve attack) and then move on to the next one.

[ryan92084]

I swear EB needs its own sticky or something

EB FAQs
1) The attacks are made sequentially. Currently the only non aoe that does simultaneous damage is magic missile.
2) Repelling blast can push the target(s) 10ft for each beam that hits
3) Agonizing blast applies +cha to each beam that hits.
4) Like all scaling cantrips the attacks scale with total (not class) level.

For anyone who doesn't think the other two tweets already posted put the RAI debate to rest there is the also this one
Nyke Young Workshop ‎@nykeyoungws @mikemearls @JeremyECrawford Multi-Atk spells (Scorching Ray, Eldritch Blast): Fire 1, see result, fire next? Or choose tgts b4 atk rolls?
Jeremy Crawford ‎@JeremyECrawford The intent is that you choose the targets consecutively, not simultaneously
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/01/24/multi-attack-spells-see-result-fire-next-or-before-attack-rolls/

[Joe the Rat]

Scaling? that could work. Hit three targets it's superior. I'd allow agonizing 1/time it applies normally. Ie 1 at 2nd, 2 at 5th, etc.

10' cone - is that 3 or 4 squares?
1d4 scaling. I'd be more inclined to treat it as a single "hit", so agonizing blast (and repelling blast) only proc once per target. Up to 1d6? Up to 15'?
Dex Save for nil. No disadvantage for point blank, no Hex. Since we are burning an invocation, Dex for half? No repel on save?

Totally makes up for the lack of Thunderwave. (Note to self: Make "Genie Noble" Patrons)

[Arial Black]

hmmm... trying to find a more clearly stated source, but it's in the combat section about making an attack. the first step is choosing a target, the last step is resolving the attack. so to make multiple attacks, you make the first one (choose target, do stuff in middle, resolve attack) and then move on to the next one.

It doesn't follow.

The section entitled Making An Attack the PHB gives you a step-by-step guide on how to resolve an attack using 5E game mechanics.

However, this section is silent on the question about resolving multiple attacks. We shouldn't expect it to! That's not what this section of the rules is for!

Each discrete attack must follow those steps in order, but it is neither written nor intended anywhere in the rules that attacks cannot be simultaneous. You could set up a load of cannon all set to fire at the pull of a single string and they would fire simultaneously. When resolving each attack, the steps are taken in order for each attack, but there is nothing to prevent all of these attacks resolving at the exact same moment in time.

[SharkForce]

It doesn't follow.

The section entitled Making An Attack the PHB gives you a step-by-step guide on how to resolve an attack using 5E game mechanics.

However, this section is silent on the question about resolving multiple attacks. We shouldn't expect it to! That's not what this section of the rules is for!

Each discrete attack must follow those steps in order, but it is neither written nor intended anywhere in the rules that attacks cannot be simultaneous. You could set up a load of cannon all set to fire at the pull of a single string and they would fire simultaneously. When resolving each attack, the steps are taken in order for each attack, but there is nothing to prevent all of these attacks resolving at the exact same moment in time.

there is no place to resolve multiple attacks at the same time in that sequence. making an attack consists of choosing a target through resolving the attack.

most likely, a group of cannon rigged to fire at once would be treated as an area effect with a saving throw to reduce damage, not as an attack per se.

[Millstone85]

Are there rules for cannons? I would expect that aiming and firing one would take more than one round.

I think eldritch blast is conceptually more like a martial character shooting several arrows on their turn. As cool as putting them all together on the bow would be, I think the edition favors using them in rapid succession.

[RickAllison]

Are there rules for cannons? I would expect that aiming and firing one would take more than one round.

I think eldritch blast is conceptually more like a martial character shooting several arrows on their turn. As cool as putting them all together on the bow would be, I think the edition favors using them in rapid succession.

They are in the DMG. They take three actions: load, aim, fire. A three-man team can do it in one turn (unrealistic as it may be). And actually, a Hasted Thief can do it one solo!

[Arial Black]

there is no place to resolve multiple attacks at the same time in that sequence. making an attack consists of choosing a target through resolving the attack.

most likely, a group of cannon rigged to fire at once would be treated as an area effect with a saving throw to reduce damage, not as an attack per se.

The cannon thing was only an example.

Let me put it another way: I use an instantaneous duration spell which shoots three bolts of fire simultaneously. I must use a separate attack roll for each bolt, and each simultaneous bolt must follow the steps of 'making an attack'. (BTW, this is exactly how scorching ray works)

At no point in that sequence of events has any of those attacks broken the rules for 'making an attack', and those rules do not speak to multiple attacks in any way.

If you think that any of these simultaneous attacks breaks the rules for 'making an attack' then quote the part that is broken by any of those attacks.

[Millstone85]

They are in the DMG.Thanks. I found the cannon on page 255. Weirdly enough, it uses an attack roll, +6 to hit.


Let me put it another way: I use an instantaneous duration spell which shoots three bolts of fire simultaneously. I must use a separate attack roll for each bolt, and each simultaneous bolt must follow the steps of 'making an attack'. (BTW, this is exactly how scorching ray works)Except that scorching ray doesn't use the word simultaneous any more than eldritch blast does. The debate would be the same on either spell.

[orange74]

Except that scorching ray doesn't use the word simultaneous any more than eldritch blast does. The debate would be the same on either spell.
Yes, it sure is strange that the developers managed to use the word "simultaneously" in the description for magic missile but evidently forgot to include it in all the other spells where it obviously applies.

[ryan92084]

Yes, it sure is strange that the developers managed to use the word "simultaneously" in the description for magic missile but evidently forgot to include it in all the other spells where it obviously applies.

You forgot the /s

[Arial Black]

Thanks. I found the cannon on page 255. Weirdly enough, it uses an attack roll, +6 to hit.

Except that scorching ray doesn't use the word simultaneous any more than eldritch blast does. The debate would be the same on either spell.

The wording of scorching ray is unchanged from 3E...except that 5E dropped the line about 'simultaneous'.

You can see the evolution of the game through its editions. The meaning of the 'instantaneous' duration, the concept that its magic comes and goes 'in an instant' is unchanged throughout the editions, even if the words explaining it have.

3E is (in)famous for wordy, detailed, sometimes redundantly written rules. This approach has advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that there are fewer misconceptions. For example, one consequence of the instantaneous duration is that instantaneous multi-shot spells must have simultaneous shot by definition, but even so 3E chose to use redundancy to point out in the spell descriptions that these attacks were simultaneous. Not because they point it out, but because they are instantaneous.

5E has far less verbiage, and this has its own advantages and disadvantages. One disadvantage is that the lack of clarification opens the door to misconceptions such as allowing 'instantaneous' spells with consecutive shots.

However, the rules for instantaneous spells have not actually changed! The same wording in the rules for instantaneous spells in 3E (comes and goes in an instant), including the consequence of simultaneous bolts, is repeated in 5E!

The same logic applies! If the fact that the magic 'comes and goes in an instant' means that the bolts must be simultaneous, then those same words have the same logical consequence in 5E!

5E did not change how instantaneous spells work. There is nothing in the 5E PHB that suggests the same wording means something else!

[Xetheral]

An 'instant' is an infinitely small (but non-zero) period of time. Just because people can use the word casually and imprecisely doesn't give us a reason to use it imprecisely as a spell duration.


Furthermore, you cannot ignore what words mean. You cannot ignore the rule that 'the magic lasts only an instant' by pretending that 'instant' (indicating an infinitely small time span)...

You are ignoring that an "instant" can equally mean "a very short space of time; a moment" (Google, sense 2). You are therefore wrong when you assert that an "instant" is necessarily "infinitely small".

[Tanarii]

First of all, 5e is not 3e. You can't point at 3e and claim things have not changed, so they work the same.

Especially when things have changed, and a key word is no longer present. That's not a justification that things should be ruled the same. Thats's some bassackward non-logic.

[Millstone85]

You can see the evolution of the game through its editions. The meaning of the 'instantaneous' duration, the concept that its magic comes and goes 'in an instant' is unchanged throughout the editions, even if the words explaining it have.
First of all, 5e is not 3e. You can't point at 3e and claim things have not changed, so they work the same.As someone who has never played 3e, I am especially uncomfortable with such meta-edition considerations.

[Tanarii]

As someone who has never played 3e, I am especially uncomfortable with such meta-edition considerations.
I've DM'd them all since 1e/BECMI, and played all except 2nd, but I still don't think it's fair game.

But what really bothered me was the 'it's been removed, but nothing has changed' attempted justification. :smallconfused:

[ryan92084]

First of all, 5e is not 3e. You can't point at 3e and claim things have not changed, so they work the same.

Especially when things have changed, and a key word is no longer present. That's not a justification that things should be ruled the same. Thats's some bassackward non-logic.

Agreed. Deliberately dropping the word simultaneous from the description between editions seems much more likely to mean they wanted to change how the effect functions not that they were baking simultaneous attacks into the duration.

I don't really care why it was done(balance, just to be different, fit mechanics better, wanting magic missile to be an extra special flower, etc) but it was done. If someone doesn't like it then they are free to change the description of these 2 spells for their table (just be aware of some the rule interactions that come with doing so).

[Gwendol]

Hmm. The Ranger multiattack is perhaps an analogy to consider?

[Millstone85]

My understanding of "instantaneous" spells is that they have, amusingly enough, the most permanent effects in the sense that the magic needs not stay around to sustain any. Nothing goes poof after a while. Nothing can be dispelled. And I think that's all there is to read into that spell duration.

But I do find myself wanting for something to quote on that. Jeremy Crawford's tweet counts for something but printed rules would have been better.

[Mellack]

However, the rules for instantaneous spells have not actually changed! The same wording in the rules for instantaneous spells in 3E (comes and goes in an instant), including the consequence of simultaneous bolts, is repeated in 5E!

The same logic applies! If the fact that the magic 'comes and goes in an instant' means that the bolts must be simultaneous, then those same words have the same logical consequence in 5E!



I believe Orange74 showed with his examples of Feeblemind and Animate Dead that instant spells can have magic stay in effect for longer than an instant.

[Arial Black]

Deliberately dropping the word simultaneous from the description between editions seems much more likely to mean they wanted to change how the effect functions not that they were baking simultaneous attacks into the duration.

...and here's the point: if the designers of 5E deliberately wanted to change what the 'instantaneous' duration meant, then they wouldn't have left the wording of the definition of 'instantaneous' spells unchanged!

They know that a large part of players will have also played previous editions and already understand what 'instantaneous' means as a spell duration (including the writers themselves), so deliberately changing the meaning by the process of using the exact same wording is beyond belief.

Animate Dead: there are actually two ways to cast this spell (according to the spell description). The first is to instantly create undead from corpses/skeletons. Once you have created them, they exist; they cannot be dispelled any more than a golem. As for the question of control having a time limit, creating something (instantly) which itself decays/changes over time, or has a time limit, isn't a contradiction in terms. A grenade has a timer, for example. The 24 hour control you have is part of the creation process; it doesn't mean that the spell itself has a 24 hour duration.

The second use of the spell (which also has an instantaneous duration BTW) reasserts your control for another 24 hours. The control part is not the spell, it's a property of the undead you have created with the spell. You have instantly created undead, and these undead have a quality of being controlled by you for 24 hours after they were created, and you can (instantly) reassert control for another 24 hours.

Feeblemind: the wording shows the evolution from previous editions. In 3E the spell was instantaneous; if it was permanent instead, then it could be dispelled or supressed in an anti-magic field. They didn't want that, so it was an instantaneous spell with a lasting effect. However, "The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of feeblemind." So these things don't 'end the duration', they just cancel/reverse what the feeblemind did.

In 5E there has been a deliberate design choice regarding 'save or suck' spells, in that victims now get to save against them each round (or every so often, depending on the spell) until they shake off the effects. This could be by 'ending the duration' (if the duration hasn't already ended) or by cancelling/reversing the effects (if the effect lingers after the duration ends). So in 5E feeblemind remains instantaneous, but in addition to the spells that can cancel it (in 5E: greater restoration, heal, wish) you get a save every 30 days to cancel it. Although it says that the spell ends after the save succeeds or one of those spells is cast, that is poor wording. The spell has already ended, just its effects remain (like the damage remaining after being caught by a fireball). The wording needs an errata so that 'ends' is replaced by 'cancels' or the equivalent.

[ryan92084]

I neither recall nor has a brief SRD perusal has turned up a 3.5 rule that made spell effects simultaneous because of their duration. I could be wrong it has been many years. Without such a written rule this just seems like mistaking correlation for causation.

Obviously the 5e designers don't believe the two are linked for this edition as Crawford has stated or at least alluded to 3 times now.

*Edit* make that 4 I forgot about this one
Dan Glading ‎@danglading @JeremyECrawford @mikemearls Related: So MM=declare all targets before rolling, but SR=declare, roll to hit, roll for damage 3x in sequence?
Jeremy Crawford ‎@JeremyECrawford Correct. Magic missile's exceptional quality is called out in the spell: "The darts all strike simultaneously."
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/08/04/magic-missiles-strike-simultaneously/