The following Eldritch Invocation interests me greatly, and I would like some feedback
R e p e l l i n g B l a s t
Prerequisite: Eldritch blast cantrip
When you hit a creature with eldritch blast, you can push the creature up to 10 feet away from you in a straight line.
My queries about this ability
1. Target is hit by repelling blast but has a wall behind them and they are pushed into the wall. Would the target take extra damage from being pushed into the wall?
2. A naturally flying creature e.g. a bird his hit by a repelling blast. Unless hovering a bird would require momentum to maintain flight, thus could this ability force a flying creature to land?
3. A target is hit by a repelling blast. The square immediately behind the target is occupied, as is also the next square back. What would happen? Would anyone take extra damage? Would anyone fall prone?
4. A target is hit by a repelling blast and is knocked back 10 feet. There is a cliff 5 feet behind the target. Do you think the target would just fall, or would be entitled to a Save to grab the ledge?
Advice is appreciated. If anyone else has scenarios where there could be some confusion with this ability, please feel welcome to contribute.
Also if other people have links to other Push "attack" discussions, could you please provide them.
Regards
Ravens_Claw wrote:
Ravens_Claw wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Thanks for the feedback guys
When someone is pushed by this invocation, they are pushed back against their will. A Push requires a fair amount of force. There is also the matter if someone is pushed into rough terrain, but I didn't want to complicate things.
I think we need better details on the "Push" and "Shove" actions. Shove can be used as a action, and fighters also have a Push Ability.
I can agree that pushing a flying creature will not make it prone. I think a save is fair eough if someone is pushed 5ft over a ledge, but not if they are pushed 10ft or more.
I do think though pushing someone into a wall, and pushing a foe into either a friendly or enemy space requires some more detail from Wizards. I think there is grounds for a consequence if someone is pushed into a wall, and a possibility of a consequence if someone is pushed into a friendly or enemy space.
Cheers
Do they get pushed back 10' for every blast that hits?
FunkySpunk wrote:
JackOfAllTirades wrote:
If your dm lets you pick the target for the 2nd blast after you see what happens to the first, then you should get separate pushes. If you pick all the targets at the start, then maybe just one push per target.
Ravens_Claw wrote:
Ravens_Claw wrote:
FunkySpunk wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
FunkySpunk wrote:
For the sake of argument, I'm in the camp that understands it to be cumulative.
The "instantaneous-argument" is not an argument for the simultaneous striking of the target. The duration mechanic describes (PHB p.203-204) the duration of time that a spell persists, that is, what effect(s) continue after its been cast. Additionally, I point to Magic Missle, the closest analogous spell to EB which includes the specific language "[t]he darts strike simultaneously". By the absence of similar language in EB we can infer that it doesn't function the same way as MM, that such a clause was included as an exception to the general rule as intended.
ArialBlack wrote:
It does not follow that the phrase, 'The darts strike simultaneously' , indicates that there is a general rule saying the opposite. If a spell says that, 'you choose a target, wait to see what happens, then decide the next target', this would not create a general rule that other spells must do the opposite.
Since EB doesn't say either way, we rule on our understanding of how it works.
It never occurred to me that the beams are like firing a six-shooter, pausing between shots. This does not scream 'instantaneous' to me!
I'm not on twitter, but asking Mr. Crawford whether the beams of EB are consecutive or simultaneous would be valuable, and not just to work out if the Repelling Blasts are cumulative. Actually, while you're there, ask him that too.
You could also ask about scorching ray, or ask him about the general rule for multi-beam instantaneous spells.
ArialBlack wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Wow man. Really? It's on page 203 of the PHB. It's very clearly defined as having the benefit of not being dispelled. READ THE PHB good lord...
You keep saying that EB hits simultaneously and yet there's 0 to back up your claim. Nothing. Nothing at all except your constant claim that it does. /facepalm.
Noctaem wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Irithil wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
But if we want to continue to be literal, I present science. It works...
ArialBlack wrote:
durntaur wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
FunkySpunk wrote:
FunkySpunk wrote:
Well then, if each blast is resolved individually, I would think they all aren't fired in the same exact instant. Therefore, I'd argue each blast knocks an enemy back 10'.
Hey... not to derail the interesting argument about reading, but I have a question about that last part with the saving throw or the acrobatics roll or whatever...
Do you take into account whether or not the person grabbing for the ledge still has their reaction? Maybe something like allowing them to choose a skill check if they still have a reaction, but if not they can try for a saving throw?
SterlingRat wrote:
Noctaem wants me to read the PHB. I want Noctaen to comprehend what's written in the PHB.
Spells have a stat block, which tells us things like range, casting time, spell level, and duration.
What does it mean by the word 'duration'? Is this entry giving us the information about how long the spell's effects stay in the world, as natural language would suggest? Or is the purpose of this line simply to tell us if the spell is dispellable? If so, wouldn't it be 'Dispellable?' instead of 'Duration'?
Noctaem wants me to read the book, so here's what is written, as copied and pasted from one of Noctaem's earlier posts:-
A spell's duration is the length of time the spell persists.
SterlingRat wrote:
And Arial, seriously I'm not gonna waste more time talking to you. You're just stuck with your bias and I'm not sure how I can possibly make you realize that you're not only adding text to the rules but the spell itself. I've linked both the spell text and the rule book definition of what instantaneous means. My only advise now is to read what I've linked so you can actually understand how it works. You're also now breaking up the text of the rules I've linked to use those broken up pieces to claim they mean things they don't. For example, the instantaneous definition says the spells can't be dispelled and goes on to say WHY they can't be dispelled. They happen and resolve fast enough that they can't be. But you're using that as the jump point to argue a whole other and unrelated string of ideas that make no logical sense with the rules text or the spell you're trying to apply these ideas to. It's not worth it to continue the discussion if that's what you're going to do.
GL to you.
Angry_Steak wrote: