Eldritch Blast Knock Back -

[Tawmis]

Is there a size limit?

For example, if a human warlock - casts Eldritch Blast has the option to knock back 10' - would this work even against say, a massive creature like a Kraken?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Is there a size limit?

For example, if a human warlock - casts Eldritch Blast has the option to knock back 10' - would this work even against say, a massive creature like a Kraken?

No. Yes.

At least by default.

[Greywander]

This is one of the reasons Repelling Blast is considered to be so strong, the other being that it applies to each beam, and also that there's no save. If you can hit it, you can push it, period. No save, so size restriction, up to 40 feet.

This can be really good for dealing with enemies that grapple. If you can move them so that any allies they're grappling are now out of their reach, the grapple ends automatically. You can also, optionally, blast your party members to push them out of reach, but that's not usually the best idea (but rarely it might be!).

[Valmark]

This is one of the reasons Repelling Blast is considered to be so strong, the other being that it applies to each beam, and also that there's no save. If you can hit it, you can push it, period. No save, so size restriction, up to 40 feet.

This can be really good for dealing with enemies that grapple. If you can move them so that any allies they're grappling are now out of their reach, the grapple ends automatically. You can also, optionally, blast your party members to push them out of reach, but that's not usually the best idea (but rarely it might be!).

It's worth it to note that a strict enough reading of the rules doesn't allow to break a grapple by pushing away the grappler- tecnically the text says that you can break one by pushing away the grappled creature, not the grappler.

It's further shown by the fact that when the grappler moves they can just take the grappled with them.

[stoutstien]

It's worth it to note that a strict enough reading of the rules doesn't allow to break a grapple by pushing away the grappler- tecnically the text says that you can break one by pushing away the grappled creature, not the grappler.

It's further shown by the fact that when the grappler moves they can just take the grappled with them.

Not really. If you move someone out of reach the grappled condition is removed and nothing about the condition moves both targets at once.

[Valmark]

Not really. If you move someone out of reach the grappled condition is removed and nothing about the condition moves both targets at once.

Except that when the grappler "moves" (which 5e uses both to mean forced and non movement) they can take the grappled with them, so pushing them with Eldritch Blast may well make the grappled follow along.

[ff7hero]

Except that when the grappler "moves" (which 5e uses both to mean forced and non movement) they can take the grappled with them, so pushing them with Eldritch Blast may well make the grappled follow along.

Repelling Blast triggers opportunity attacks now?

[stoutstien]

Except that when the grappler "moves" (which 5e uses both to mean forced and non movement) they can take the grappled with them, so pushing them with Eldritch Blast may well make the grappled follow along.

That is peasant rail cannon level of purposely trying to twist rules. The grapple condition's third bullet is pretty explicit about forced movement effects.

[Valmark]

Repelling Blast triggers opportunity attacks now?
I don't think someone mentioned opportunity attacks? Anyway no.

That is peasant rail cannon level of purposely trying to twist rules. The grapple condition's third bullet is pretty explicit about forced movement effects.

A different reading doesn't mean that it's twisting the rules.

Yes, it's explicit. That's why I said that one needs to be stricter in the reading- it explicitely says that you can remove the grappled from the reach of the grappler, but doesn't say that the same happens if you push the grappler.

Which, to be fair, makes sense in some cases- for example if I use Repelling Blast to push away a giant grappling my party member there's no clear reason for why it should let go of said party member.

(It makes little sense in some other cases though).

[Kuulvheysoon]

Yeah, Repelling Blast and Grasp of Hadar both require either alternate fluffing or willful ignorance of logic (in a magical world, I know, right? Unconscionable).

Last time one of my players had a Repelling Blast warlock, the blast made the target briefly phase into the Ethereal Plane, which made the more logical inconsistencies largely inconsequential.

[Kane0]

I think thats one of the reasons grasp of hadar and lance of lethargy are restricted like they are. My theory is that the devs werent as specific in the PHB for Agonising blast and repelling blast and didnt intend for them to be that potent (or forgot that EB adds additional attacks instead of scaling damage like every other attack cantrip)

[ProsecutorGodot]

I don't think someone mentioned opportunity attacks? Anyway no.

If your reading suggests that the forced movement allows them to choose to carry their grappled target it fulfills every requirement for triggering an opportunity attack as well.

To say otherwise is simply inconsistent, and for no good reason either.

EDIT: to be clear though, you don't actually need any good reason to make a ruling, It's my own opinion that you should be as consistent as possible if you plan to make rulings like this.

[Valmark]

If your reading suggests that the forced movement allows them to choose to carry their grappled target it fulfills every requirement for triggering an opportunity attack as well.

To say otherwise is simply inconsistent, and for no good reason either.

EDIT: to be clear though, you don't actually need any good reason to make a ruling, It's my own opinion that you should be as consistent as possible if you plan to make rulings like this.

Note: I don't read it nor rule it this way, I was just noting that it is a possible reading.

That said, opportunity attacks explicitely don't trigger if someone is moving without using their own movement or some kind of action, which is the case regarding Repelling Blast's knock back. Neither the grappler nor grappled is moving by using their movement or an action.

[KorvinStarmast]

Is there a size limit? No. It's magic.

For example, if a human warlock - casts Eldritch Blast has the option to knock back 10' - would this work even against say, a massive creature like a Kraken? Yep. That's part of why I take the repelling blast invocation; I like moving things around on the battlefield, even if I give up on damage by taking RB over AB.

Repelling Blast triggers opportunity attacks now? Nope (which means I agree with you, I think)
I think thats one of the reasons grasp of hadar and lance of lethargy are restricted like they are. My theory is that the devs werent as specific in the PHB for Agonising blast and repelling blast and didnt intend for them to be that potent (or forgot that EB adds additional attacks instead of scaling damage like every other attack cantrip) Sadly so; RB is a choice one makes which foregoes a different invocation. It should be powerful. I wish Hadar and Lethargy were the same as RB. Oh well. :smallfrown:

[Segev]

If your reading suggests that the forced movement allows them to choose to carry their grappled target it fulfills every requirement for triggering an opportunity attack as well.

Could you walk me through this reasoning step by step, please? I am not following how these are connected.

[da newt]

For reference, these are the specific words in the PHB Appendix A Conditions:

Grappled
* A grappled creature’s speed becomes 0, and it can’t benefit from any bonus to its speed.
* The condition ends if the Grappler is incapacitated (see the condition).
* The condition also ends if an Effect removes the grappled creature from the reach of the Grappler or Grappling Effect, such as when a creature is hurled away by the Thunderwave spell.

For me, the 3rd bullet is a mess. It does say 'removes a grappled creature from the reach of the grappler' but it does not say if this can be accomplished by moving the grappler away or only by moving the grappled. This is further confused by the example given - Thunderwave - a spell which is cast on SELF and pushes others away. This implies the grappled can move the grappler away from them to break the grapple, but does not say so explicitly.

I can follow the logic of both interpretations, but I believe the intent is any forced movement of the grappled or grappler breaks the grapple.

[Asmotherion]

Is there a size limit?

For example, if a human warlock - casts Eldritch Blast has the option to knock back 10' - would this work even against say, a massive creature like a Kraken?

RAW yes, it works reguardless of size. You could even move a Dragon or Giant, as far as rules are concerned.

It is however not beyond reason to imagine a DM ruling otherwise. It should be expected, if anything.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Could you walk me through this reasoning step by step, please? I am not following how these are connected.

That was mostly me forgetting that opportunity attacks also have a clause that it must use your movement or an action of some type and can't be forced movement.

However, if you rule that a grappled creature can choose to keep a target grappled during forced movement despite the wording saying "when you move, you can carry or drag the creature with you, but your speed is halved" which reads naturally as movement you choose to take, it wouldn't be unreasonable for a player to question for what reason opportunity attacks should be treated differently.

Definitely an extended lapse in memory on my part, opportunity attacks are fairly explicit that forced movement doesn't apply, the argument should focus more on whether your ability to carry a target with you works with forced movement.

[stoutstien]

Attacks of opportunity are nonsense through and through. Moving away from an attacker is probably the most sound way to not to be hit with a weapon. The part of the game like a blind is and poker in that they serve to keep it moving forward.

[Snails]

My personal opinion is that Grapple itself is a purposefully weak condition in 5e, where it is deliberately vague about the amount of physical contact. Grapple exists in order to have some minimal means of simply impeding/controlling movement with fewer rules headaches.

In that context, I think that breaking the Grapple easily, via moving either the Grappler or Grapplee, is perfectly okay.

The ability of PCs to force movement on another creature via Grapple is very limited and narrow by the RAW. Very strong/large monsters may have very different rules. The DM is welcome to imagine stronger kinds of Grappling abilities, of course. Note that even Restrained is not a strong condition (when compared to, say, 3e); you take some minor penalties, but the only thing you are actually prevented from doing is moving.

[Snails]

Attacks of opportunity are nonsense through and through. Moving away from an attacker is probably the most sound way to not to be hit with a weapon. The part of the game like a blind is and poker in that they serve to keep it moving forward.

True. The rules are bias towards encouraging PCs/NPCs to mindlessly run towards each other swinging pointy sticks. You are not required to employ those tactics, no, but the rules are written to encourage as much.

Thus the mechanics for the preferred tactics are super clean and simple: "I move forward and attack! <roll the d20>" Cannot be simpler than that, right? The AOs are simply tacked on in the only place left where they could fit, not because they make any particular sense. Since the game pacing is build on a foundation of PCs/NPCs standing toe to toe and bashing away, punishing someone who chooses to leave the brawl is okayish (but most could chose Withdraw, after all, so fleeing is not hopeless).

D&D is far more of a simulation of cinematic combat that realistic combat. In the real world, charging in aggressively against a skilled foe could easily get you maimed before you even understood what hit you.

It is easy to imagine what more realistic rules might be, but they would involve things like simultaneous actions and getting bonuses/penalties based on matchups on a Tactical Matrix ("I attack with a Feint." "I defend by Giving Ground."). It is not difficult to write reasonable rules that weave in these nuances, but they are inevitably vastly more complex than what we are used to.

To allow the casual player to simply say "I move forward and attack! <roll the d20>" without much thinking required is basically a Sacred Cow. 5e polished the rules so that players are much less likely to need to worry about AOs and Readied Actions when employing these simple tactics (when compared to 3e).

[Segev]

That was mostly me forgetting that opportunity attacks also have a clause that it must use your movement or an action of some type and can't be forced movement.

However, if you rule that a grappled creature can choose to keep a target grappled during forced movement despite the wording saying "when you move, you can carry or drag the creature with you, but your speed is halved" which reads naturally as movement you choose to take, it wouldn't be unreasonable for a player to question for what reason opportunity attacks should be treated differently.

Definitely an extended lapse in memory on my part, opportunity attacks are fairly explicit that forced movement doesn't apply, the argument should focus more on whether your ability to carry a target with you works with forced movement.

On the one hand, I would argue that if a creature has something gripped such that it can't move away and the creature CAN drag it along, then a third party shoving the creature wouldn't compel the creature to let go, so yes, the creature can drag the other one. Note that it doesn't use the grappling creature's movement, so the "speed is halved" thing doesn't matter; the creature's speed never enters into it. (For example, you can use Telekinetic to shove a creature 10 feet even if the creature has only a land speed of 5 feet!)

On the other hand, certainly if Willy the Woodgnome Warlock wishes to Repelling Blast the hobgoblin that's grappling him away from him, I would argue that he's shoving the hobgoblin AWAY, and thus shouldn't be dragged with him.

I think this falls into "rulings, not rules" territory, myself. Let the DM judge what makes sense for a given situation.

[KorvinStarmast]

For reference, these are the specific words in the PHB Appendix A Conditions:
Grappled
* A grappled creature’s speed becomes 0, and it can’t benefit from any bonus to its speed.
* The condition ends if the Grappler is incapacitated (see the condition).
* The condition also ends if an Effect removes the grappled creature from the reach of the Grappler or Grappling Effect, such as when a creature is hurled away by the Thunderwave spell.

{snip}
I can follow the logic of both interpretations, but I believe the intent is any forced movement of the grappled or grappler breaks the grapple. That's how we have always played it.

Attacks of opportunity are nonsense through and through. Moving away from an attacker is probably the most sound way to not to be hit with a weapon. The part of the game like a blind is and poker in that they serve to keep it moving forward. The Disengage action permits that kind of withdrawal, however.
(Note 1:, personal pet peeve, attacks of opportunity is 3.x. In this edition, it's 'opportunity attack' :smallyuk: )
(Note:2 your second sentence came across as a confusion of words. Not sure what you meant by that).

My personal opinion is that Grapple itself is a purposefully weak condition in 5e, where it is deliberately vague about the amount of physical contact. Grapple exists in order to have some minimal means of simply impeding/controlling movement with fewer rules headaches. Given the oddball rules on grapple in 3.x, I suspect that you are correct.

[Joe the Rat]

A little bit of headcanon I have which covers the "push the Zaratan" situation is the idea that you are blasting and pushing the target's animating force (soul, usually), and the body is being hauled along with it.

It also neatly accounts for the "can only target creatures" trait.

Maybe I've watched too many Vin Diesel movies.

[Segev]

Thanks to this thread, I am now picturing eldritch blast looking like Syndrome's Zero-Point Energy rays.

[brainface]

On the one hand, I would argue that if a creature has something gripped such that it can't move away and the creature CAN drag it along, then a third party shoving the creature wouldn't compel the creature to let go, so yes, the creature can drag the other one. Note that it doesn't use the grappling creature's movement, so the "speed is halved" thing doesn't matter; the creature's speed never enters into it. (For example, you can use Telekinetic to shove a creature 10 feet even if the creature has only a land speed of 5 feet!)

On the other hand, certainly if Willy the Woodgnome Warlock wishes to Repelling Blast the hobgoblin that's grappling him away from him, I would argue that he's shoving the hobgoblin AWAY, and thus shouldn't be dragged with him.

I think this falls into "rulings, not rules" territory, myself. Let the DM judge what makes sense for a given situation.

Yeah, I think I'd rule that based on the situation. Knock a kraken back, he's still got the party fighter in a super-hug. Hit the party fighter, he goes flying free. If a goliath has the mage, send the goliath flying away and free the mage, sure, he outweighs him four to one, not forty to one, seems fair.

That at least seems more interesting than trying to figure out exact designer intent. I'd probably want to warn the player beforehand in case they'd assumed a different RAW result.

[Segev]

Yeah, I think I'd rule that based on the situation. Knock a kraken back, he's still got the party fighter in a super-hug. Hit the party fighter, he goes flying free. If a goliath has the mage, send the goliath flying away and free the mage, sure, he outweighs him four to one, not forty to one, seems fair.

That at least seems more interesting than trying to figure out exact designer intent. I'd probably want to warn the player beforehand in case they'd assumed a different RAW result.

Personally, I base it on the source of the blast. If the one-being-grappled is the source of the blast, he's shoving the grappler away. For the source of the blast to go with the grappler, it'd have to be able to shove the grappler the way a cartoon fan on a sailboat can make a sailboat go. (Incidentally, I would allow that with gust of wind.) Repelling Blast specifically says it shoves the target "away" from the blaster.

But if the blaster is shooting a goliath holding a halfling friend of the blaster, the goliath can keep hold on the halfling and drag the halfling with her, she's not got a force pushing her away from the halfling.

[Aimeryan]

[snip]a cartoon fan on a sailboat can make a sailboat go[snip]

Heh, that actually works (https://youtu.be/uKXMTzMQWjo?t=54) as the system is not closed; the air being reflected off the sail goes backwards (and to the sides) which leaves the boat with some of the momentum. It would be way more efficient to face the fan backwards, though.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Attacks of opportunity are nonsense through and through. Moving away from an attacker is probably the most sound way to not to be hit with a weapon. The part of the game like a blind is and poker in that they serve to keep it moving forward.

So turning your back on someone whose a trying to attack you is a sound way not to be hit? Do you also close your eyes and imagine they won’t hit you?
So to avoid turning your back on the enemy, you have to move differently then if you moved away from an ally. Which is why it takes a disengage action or a class feature.

[stoutstien]

So turning your back on someone whose a trying to attack you is a sound way not to be hit? Do you also close your eyes and imagine they won’t hit you?
So to avoid turning your back on the enemy, you have to move differently then if you moved away from an ally. Which is why it takes a disengage action or a class feature.

Well as far as the game goes facing doesn't exist outside of some optional rules that actually DO work this way. If you run past someone they can't take an AOO on you because the refacing takes the same reaction.

As far as a more general statement, taking a quick half step back while clearing the foes weapon and then turning tail can be valid strategy because pursuing is as dangerous if not more so than giving ground.
There is a reason why most combative sports penalize backing away from the opponent beyond short periods of time.

[Segev]

Well as far as the game goes facing doesn't exist outside of some optional rules that actually DO work this way. If you run past someone they can't take an AOO on you because the refacing takes the same reaction.

As far as a more general statement, taking a quick half step back while clearing the foes weapon and then turning tail can be valid strategy because pursuing is as dangerous if not more so than giving ground.
There is a reason why most combative sports penalize backing away from the opponent beyond short periods of time.
I think you just described the Disengage action.

[stoutstien]

I think you just described the Disengage action.
Sure but the fact it's an action is only there because of legacy and pushing encounters forward. Reason why someone stepping back triggers an AOO but being shoved grants them divine protection or something. It's not logical it's just how the rules go.

[Reynaert]

So turning your back on someone whose a trying to attack you is a sound way not to be hit? Do you also close your eyes and imagine they won’t hit you?
So to avoid turning your back on the enemy, you have to move differently then if you moved away from an ally. Which is why it takes a disengage action or a class feature.

If I'm talking to a friend, then the conversation is over and I want to walk away from them, I don't first turn my back and then start walking; I take a step back and then turn into the step.
That movement is enough to get me out of range of an attack. So no, I do not have to move differently. Which is why having to use the disengage action or a class feature is completely unrealistic.

Opportunity Attacks are just there for play balance reasons. I think they're not even there to prevent the 'running away' scenario but more the 'run up, attack and then move away again' scenario or the 'going past an enemy to attack someone else' scenario.

[LudicSavant]

Is there a size limit?

For example, if a human warlock - casts Eldritch Blast has the option to knock back 10' - would this work even against say, a massive creature like a Kraken?

Yes, it's why it's such a strong invocation.