Eldritch Blast Targets Randomly?

[Abecbu]

I was reading a thread discussing whether or not players get to pick their summons and someone brought up Eldritch Blast as having just as ambiguous wording but no one seems to argue over it. After looking into it I can't find a single reason the player would get to pick the target of Eldritch Blast.

The targets section of the player's handbook only says "A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for the effect." So there's no overarching targeting stat for spells like casting time or duration, just read the spell description. Also non "typical" spells might not require you to pick a target.

Let's see some examples of clearly worded spells.
Fire Bolt: "You hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target."
Magic Missile: "You create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range."

Both clearly state the "you" pick the target.

Now for Eldritch Blast: "A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target."
That's it. Nothing about picking a target. The clear path to target rule doesn't help us out either because we never targeted anything. This also means "creature" would include friendly PC's.

Am I missing something? Eldritch Blast probably the best damage cantrip in the game if you get to pick targets. Maybe not being able to pick the target was suppose to be it's draw back?

Edit: I just found Ray of Frost has a similar wording. I was thinking Eldritch Blast being random might go with Warlock but Ray of Frost is just a normal spell. Are there any errata's on spells worded like this?

[StoicLeaf]

I agree it's worded poorly but you answered your own question.

"A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic."
This is a typical spell because when random effects are part of a spell's/ability's feature it explicitly states so.

Additionally, most spells can be used against friendly creatures.

[Silfir]

There is nothing in there that supports the conclusion that a random target is hit. Most notably, a means of determining the target by random means, or the word "random" for that matter.

Arguing by wording, to me the word "target" implies a deliberate component; someone's doing the targeting.

The teleological argument is that Eldritch Blast is supposed to target because it would be clearly awful otherwise, especially without a "doesn't hit friendlies" clause.

Finally, the historical argument is that Eldritch Blast has been played as a targeted attack spell for as long as it has existed in DnD, and if a change had been intended by designers of 5e, it would have been clearly noted.

[Anonymouswizard]

This is weird, strictly there's nothing one way or the other, however the wording implies that you choose. I can't strictly claim it's RAW, but by combining the two statements we can deduce that is was probably RAI that you get to pick the target, as StoicLeaf points out.

Also, any spell that doesn't specify it can't effect friendlies can affect friendlies (and conversely a spell is only unable to affect enemies if it specifies so). It's rare that you'll want to give a friend a drawback or an enemy a bonus, but it can be useful in the right circumstances (e.g. sword of ogre decapitation).

[Zippee]

I agree it's worded poorly but you answered your own question.

"A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic."
.

This.

If there's a target for the spell, then you [the caster] gets to pick the target unless the spell description specifically says otherwise

Nice try but, sorry nope

[Abecbu]

To the typical spell argument, I think I was initially trying to argue that Eldritch Blast wasn't a typical spell given the Warlock theme and the multiple attack roles for higher level casting which is pretty unique. After seeing that Ray of Frost is worded the same way I'm more at peace with following the typical spell target rule.

Thanks for the discussion!

[fbelanger]

When we are reduce to have so twisted reasoning, it mean it is time to have new core material,
Can we hurry the release of Xanathar guide?

[Rhedyn]

I was reading a thread discussing whether or not players get to pick their summons and someone brought up Eldritch Blast as having just as ambiguous wording but no one seems to argue over it. After looking into it I can't find a single reason the player would get to pick the target of Eldritch Blast.

The targets section of the player's handbook only says "A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for the effect." So there's no overarching targeting stat for spells like casting time or duration, just read the spell description. Also non "typical" spells might not require you to pick a target.

Let's see some examples of clearly worded spells.
Fire Bolt: "You hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target."
Magic Missile: "You create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range."

Both clearly state the "you" pick the target.

Now for Eldritch Blast: "A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target."
That's it. Nothing about picking a target. The clear path to target rule doesn't help us out either because we never targeted anything. This also means "creature" would include friendly PC's.

Am I missing something? Eldritch Blast probably the best damage cantrip in the game if you get to pick targets. Maybe not being able to pick the target was suppose to be it's draw back?

Edit: I just found Ray of Frost has a similar wording. I was thinking Eldritch Blast being random might go with Warlock but Ray of Frost is just a normal spell. Are there any errata's on spells worded like this?

Don't worry. Single creature summons are player pick per a sage advice.

DM picks summons has no basis in raw.

But yes if the SA made sense EB would be DMs choice.

[JakOfAllTirades]

It's fun to point out how poorly written the PHB is, but...

...if ANY dungeon master tried to impose such a ruling in an actual D&D game, I'd be gone in less than a minute, never to waste another moment of my time at his table again.

[Anonymouswizard]

When we tried to do that, in 4E, it drove the 'feeling' right out of the game for a lot of people.

Ah yes, 4e. The game which had a surprising amount of fluff in the core books, which built up the Nentir Vale, which actually had quite a bit of D&D 'feeling'. However the game encourage refluffing to the point that people didn't pay attention to the fluff, and the mechanics were rather mechanical (on the other hand they were precise enough to tell you exactly what the effects were).


You can have tighter mechanics than 5e does, especially for spells, and still retain the feeling. 3.X had slightly clearer spells, for example, although many games are even less clear (Vampire I'm looking at you!), and sometimes intentionally vague because you're supposed to improvise them (Mage I'm looking at you!).

[Knaight]

Ah yes, 4e. The game which had a surprising amount of fluff in the core books, which built up the Nentir Vale, which actually had quite a bit of D&D 'feeling'.

Fluff in the core books is nothing new. Beyond the various ways a setting is implied (what does and doesn't make equipment lists, what classes do and don't exist, commentary on population sizes, example character names, numerous trap specific mechanics, what environments get details, how magic works, what spells there are, etc.) and various fairly explicit setting specific content (particular non-human races, particular monsters, more focused prestige classes) you see earlier editions throw in detailed population size charts, pages and pages on Great Wheel cosmology, titles for every class on a per level basis, and other details that go beyond an implied setting and start outlining a specific one. There's nothing surprising about it showing up in 4e as well, and meanwhile the mechanics were written in a staggeringly dull fashion.

[Anonymouswizard]

Look, I liked 4.x. I didn't play it much, but I still appreciate what it brought, and use a lot of it's mechanics in 5E. I wasn't trashing it. But, I will say, when you read through much of the mechanical stuff, it is so divorced from the fluff that it's kind of shocking.

I also think there is no way to avoid all of these problems. The rest of my post talked about that.

That's kind of what I meant when I said that the mechanics were mechanical. They were completely uninterested in what the fluff was when it came to the mechanics, which leads to some mechanics which end be working but feel weird (duh *CLANG*).

Yep, and the proof that those tighter mechanics worked is that there were no message board rules arguments for 3.x ever. Like, there was nothing to talk about, because the writing was so tight it prevented exploits or bad faith interpretations. /sarcasm

I agree with you. Parts of 5 are really sloppy. Another pass or two on consistency would have done a lot of good. But this is a social game with a broad rule set, and the only way to get rid of it is to have extremely restrictive rules, or design them in a COMPLETELY different way (like Dungeon World) that D&D doesn't have the luxury to do at this point.

We're stuck with this stuff. The only solution is to find better gamers.

I mean, I have nothing wrong with a bit of ambiguity, but 5e has real problems with lack of clarity. Eldritch Blast is a prime example, it's ambiguous when it shouldn't be. On the other hand, 'who chooses the summon' is actually a relatively good place to be ambiguous on, even if it can lead to antagonistic GM moments, because different settings will make different answers make sense. 5e could do with being a bit tighter, although it's still above the curve when it comes to clarity. A system so clear as to stop discussion is just as bad as a terminally unclear one (although the best bits of 3.X discussion for me are taking the bits that are clear and using them for unintended consequences).

Baator, even systems that are normally very good at it can have problems, like the fact Fate forgot to put in the rule that you can't sprint with a missing leg (which can be deduced from the rules there, but isn't clear).

[Silfir]

Baator, even systems that are normally very good at it can have problems, like the fact Fate forgot to put in the rule that you can't sprint with a missing leg (which can be deduced from the rules there, but isn't clear).

That's what I'd call an imaginary problem.

[Rhedyn]

It's fun to point out how poorly written the PHB is, but...

...if ANY dungeon master tried to impose such a ruling in an actual D&D game, I'd be gone in less than a minute, never to waste another moment of my time at his table again.

I feel the same way about the SA summoning ruling.

Our table just changed polymorph rather than break whole lines of spells with terrible decisions.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

That's what I'd call an imaginary problem.

Indeed. It's rather like saying D&D "forgot" the rules for indigestion or fighting while eight months pregnant.

[Anonymouswizard]

Indeed. It's rather like saying D&D "forgot" the rules for indigestion or fighting while eight months pregnant.

Eh, due to how the game works it's actually a major thing to leave out. Missing Leg is a valid major Consequence, but RAW Consequences don't do anything other than act as Aspects. So you go into the Aspect rules and see they give you Permissions, so now you can do anything you need a missing leg to do, and can be Invoked by anybody for a bonus when they'd help them. RAW having a missing leg causes you no problem unless someone spends a Fate Point to get the bonus.

You're supposed to make the intuitive leap and say 'well if an Aspect can let you do stuff it can forbid you from doing stuff', but that's unfortunately spelt out. It's a shame as it can apply to Aspects other than Consequences, although it's much less common.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Eh, due to how the game works it's actually a major thing to leave out. Missing Leg is a valid major Consequence, but RAW Consequences don't do anything other than act as Aspects. So you go into the Aspect rules and see they give you Permissions, so now you can do anything you need a missing leg to do, and can be Invoked by anybody for a bonus when they'd help them. RAW having a missing leg causes you no problem unless someone spends a Fate Point to get the bonus.

You're supposed to make the intuitive leap and say 'well if an Aspect can let you do stuff it can forbid you from doing stuff', but that's unfortunately spelt out. It's a shame as it can apply to Aspects other than Consequences, although it's much less common.

Wrong. it's explicitly stated that aspects, consequences included are true. They establish facts about the character that are true, at all times, and thus the logical consequences of these facts follow. If your character is missing a leg, then he cannot do things that require not having a missing leg. They did not feel any need to spell it out further because this is blindingly obvious. Just like the developers of 5e did not feel the need to specify that a longsword is generally made out of metal, rather than being made out of a particularly sharp aubergine.

[Zippee]

Just like the developers of 5e did not feel the need to specify that a longsword is generally made out of metal, rather than being made out of a particularly sharp aubergine.

But I like my +3 Holy Aubergine why are you taking it away from me 🤧

[Anonymouswizard]

Wrong. it's explicitly stated that aspects, consequences included are true. They establish facts about the character that are true, at all times, and thus the logical consequences of these facts follow. If your character is missing a leg, then he cannot do things that require not having a missing leg. They did not feel any need to spell it out further because this is blindingly obvious. Just like the developers of 5e did not feel the need to specify that a longsword is generally made out of metal, rather than being made out of a particularly sharp aubergine.

And people still argued about it, because nothing says something that's true has to have an in-game effect.

I was specifically using a silly example to show that, most of the time this vague wording comes up, the intent is obvious. I 100% understand how Aspects work, but their description of how they work makes it sound like Permissions are all good, despite negative Permissions being obvious.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

And people still argued about it

Irrelevant. People often argue about things despite being wrong. There are still people arguing that the peasant railgun works in 3.5, doesn't make it any less ambiguous that it doesn't.

because nothing says something that's true has to have an in-game effect.

Yes it does. Repeatedly. Doesn't give much guidance as to what those effects should necessarily be, but that's rules-light games for you.

[Puh Laden]

The wording of fire bolt amd eldritch blast are the same with regards to targeting.