I am pro ranger and would love for this to work where the 2d8 also hits the original target. However, I admit I don't think it does. If you are casting this at level 9 with a third level spell slot the main target would take 4d8 + 5 + (any other buffs like a magic bow or sharpshooter), so thats not bad! Then you have your second attack. And then you have the splash damage. This spell also works like hail of thorns in that if the main target is large or larger the area of effect for the splash damage is larger, as it is 10' from the original target. So the amount of targets can be quite a lot. I like hail of thorns at higher levels more than at levels 1 or even 2 sometimes. Mathematically you need the original target and two sp[lash targets from lightning arrow to match the same damage out put from a hail of thorns of with the same spell slot hitting just the original target and one splash target. nThat being said, it is WAY easier to hit more targets with lighting arrow than hail of thorns.
A level 5 fireball (from a level 9 character) would do an average (assuming failing the saving throw) 35 damage to one target and 70 damage to two targets. Fireball is much more difficult to use without hitting your allies. Not difficult, mind you, just more difficult than hail of thorns or lightning arrow. The same level baseline ranger casting hail of thorns and making two attacks would do (again failing their saving throws) 35.5 damage against one target and 52 damage against two targets. Don't forget to add the extra damage from whatever ranger subclass you are playing (around another 1d6-1d8, depending on subclass). A lighting arrow against one target does only 32.5 damage against one target. Against two it does 41.5. And 50.5 against 3. Again, subclass extra damage does a lot, and which spell you use with which subclass makes a difference. For example, the hunter and horizon walker make better use of lightning arrow, while the monster slayer, gloomstalker, and beast master make better use of hail of thorns.
Does the 2d8 for the enemies within 10 ft of the target count on the target as well? The wording kinda implies it does.
I've always played it as yes, the target takes 4d8+DEX on a hit, then they and everyone else within the blast takes a Dexterity save for the additional 2d8.
However some people disagree with that interpretation however I've always found the justification a tenuous; a common example is Arms of Hadar, which most would argue is not supposed to hit the caster (even though they're technically within the radius), though you could argue that the arms erupting "from" the caster implies an exception. The problem is that if you compare to Thunderclap then this explicitly makes an exception for the caster to prevent them from being included in taking the damage. On the other hand, the counter argument goes that Ice Knife, which is somewhat similar to Lightning Arrow (range attack plus blast), explicitly includes the original target. For each side of debate you can find spells that support or contradict each argument.
Ultimately my justification for dealing both sets of damage to the original target is that even with the added damage Lightning Arrow still does less damage to the original target than a 3rd level Fireball would so it's hardly OP, and while the damage to the original target scales faster, a Ranger can only upcast it to 5th level (and that requires a high character level that most people don't play to anyway). If a full caster were using it as an additional spell (e.g- a Bard through Magical Secrets) then that might change things slightly, but I still don't think it'd be so strong as to really matter.
I dislike the fireball comparisson since you just gloss over the fact that lightning arrow allows you to take an extra attack on top of the lightning shot. Instead, we should look at the damage profile of very similair spells, in this case: the smite spells. The smite spells all have a very similair buildup: -Bonus action to cast -Concentration -Effect triggers on the next hit -1dx bonus damage to the hit per level of the spell (x ranges from 6 to 10) (Thunderous smite being the only exception with 2d6 at level 1 but no scaling) -Some added effect that is unique per smite (fear, ignite, blind, banish, staggering, pushback, marked)
If you make this comparisson, you can see that lightning arrow is really just a ranged smite spell that is not called smite: -It adds 3d8 to your standard damage with a 3th level spell (well, it replaces your d8+dex with 4d8+dex so...) -It gives you the added effect of also damaging people around the target
In the same way, hail of thorns is also a smite spell and ensnaring strike resembles smite spells closely (although here the damage is locked behind a saving throw so it is the least smitey of them all)
You are free to argue that smite spells in general don't get enough power when compared to fireball but this comparisson tells me very clearly that 4d8+dex to main target and 2d8 to other targets but not main target is very much in line with other spells and thus seems the way it was intended.
In the same way, hail of thorns is also a smite spell and ensnaring strike resembles smite spells closely (although here the damage is locked behind a saving throw so it is the least smitey of them all)
You are free to argue that smite spells in general don't get enough power when compared to fireball but this comparisson tells me very clearly that 4d8+dex to main target and 2d8 to other targets but not main target is very much in line with other spells and thus seems the way it was intended.
I mean you're not wrong but my counterpoint to that would be; how often do you see smite spells being used? In my experience at least, Paladins hardly ever use them once they realise how good Divine Smite already is. They're a category of spell (if category is the right term) that feels a bit underwhelming in general. There's also the issue of, with the other Smite spells, the rider effect applies to the original target, so I'm not sure it's really a conclusive argument anyway if the extra lightning blast is the rider for Lightning Arrow.
To be clear; I'm just setting out why I think it's fine to just deal the extra damage to the original target as the spell itself seems to suggest, as it's an average of 9 points difference at level 9, and half that if the target passes the save, it's hardly game changing either way. A spell should be self-contained, we shouldn't need to compare it with others to understand what it's saying in the first place; my comparison with Fireball is simply to highlight that if an issue with it would be whether it's overpowered to do both amounts of damage, then it's hardly making a huge difference in terms of how much damage it can do compared to spells of the same level, especially on a half caster who has more limited casting anyway.
I'm of the view that there isn't a solid RAW ruling either way, as it's relying on comparisons with other spells in both cases, so each group or DM is free to rule it however they like. The key consideration really is whether an extra 9-ish damage on a Ranger's limited spell slots is going to break your campaign.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I'm of the view that there isn't a solid RAW ruling either way, as it's relying on comparisons with other spells in both cases, so each group or DM is free to rule it however they like. The key consideration really is whether an extra 9-ish damage on a Ranger's limited spell slots is going to break your campaign.
Oh, I don't think allowing it is over powered at all. I just think people might freak out over it. Some spells (already listed) say the main target does or does not get the splash damage, including hail of thorns that wasn't mentioned above. Lighting arrow doesn't explicitly say so one way or another so you are 100% correct that its open to DM decision. I would LOVE for it to hit the main target as well, and don't think it's too much at all. I'd love it playing as a ranger and would allow it as a DM.
Turns out that Lightning Arrow does a bit more damage to a single target than most thought. You get to add your DEX mod and any other damage modifier outside of the bow/crossbow's normal damage because it turns the Ranged Weapon Damage dice to Lightning Damage Dice (i.e. 1d6, 1d8 or 1d10 turns to 4d8).
Also, don't forget that casting Lightning Arrow uses a Bonus Action. It goes off when you make a Ranged Weapon Attack and that requires the Attack action most of the time. That means you can still get an Extra Attack at "normal damage" after you got your Lightning arrow off. In most cases that will be (4d8(lightning arrow)+ 5(dex mod)) + (1d8(longbow) + 5(dex mod)) damage in a turn if both attacks hit. You could even add sharpshooter damage (on a hit) because it is a Ranged Attack.
But these two tweets contradict each other. Which of these is correct?
Tweet 1: The term "normal damage" has no special meaning in the rules. Context determines the meaning. For example, the lightning arrow spell causes a weapon to deal the lightning damage in the spell in place of whatever damage the weapon normally deals. Damage = roll + modifiers. -> This tweet explicitly declares the modifiers to be part of damage, so the lightning damage replaces modifiers.
Tweet 2: The lightning arrow spell replaces the weapon's normal damage. Roll the damage in the spell, and apply any modifiers that apply to your damage and that aren't specific to the weapon you're using. -> This tweet says to apply modifiers after the spell replaces damage.
So which are we going with?
Here's the rule in the PHB for reference, for what it's worth.
Each weapon. spell. and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target. Magic weapons, special abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage.
Where is the poll option for, "I've have been using it right the whole time"?
Sorry, it was a discovery for me at the time so I didn't think a lot of people were using it correctly and didn't put that as an option. My friends and I were all looking/using it wrong.
It is worth noting that lightning arrow has two features just like hail of thorns (one of them just like any AoE spell or effect):
1. The more creatures in the area of effect the more amount of damage this spell puts out. So a divine smite or single target spell with an attack roll gets a damage bump from a critical hit, while a spell like this is does more damage and is great for clearing groups of enemies. One thing I like about these spells versus something like fireball is it has more of a pinpoint targeting effect that plays more tactically.
2. The larger the original target of these spells, the larger the area of effect is for the splash damage. This is effective on it's own but doubles down on point number one. So while these spells aren't meant for killing the BBEG, by targeting the B(H)(G)BEG you get greater effect of the spells area of effect.
Bonus tip, these spells are great for attacking creatures on vehicles (infernal war machines, carts, ships, etc.), mounted enemies (oath breaker paladin, vampire on a nightmare, etc.), and in close quarters (dungeon or cave hallways and small rooms, city streets and alleys, rooms, huts, etc.).
Extra bonus tip, beast companions can grapple as they take the attack action, and several beasts grapple and /or restrain on a hit automatically.
Does the 2d8 for the enemies within 10 ft of the target count on the target as well? The wording kinda implies it does.
It does not. It is in the English being used that clears this up. Let me give you 2 examples.
Not included: You stand in a group of people and you say "Everyone within 10ft of me (the target) move forward 1 step". You do not move forward because you are the point of reference here and are not included.
Included: You stand in a group of people and you say "Everyone within a 10ft sphere where I'm standing (the target) move forward 1 step". Now you have designated an origin spot where you are NOW included.
Not included -Thunder Wave: A wave of thunderous force sweeps out from you. Each creature in a 15-foot cubeoriginating from you(you are the point of reference here and are not included) must make a Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, a creature takes 2d8 thunder damage and is pushed 10 feet away from you. On a successful save, the creature takes half as much damage and isn't pushed.
Included, but had to specify to not include -Thunderclap:You create a burst of thunderous sound that can be heard up to 100 feet away. Each creature within range (5ft origin where you are standing (included)), other than you(had to specify), must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or take 1d6 thunder damage.
You might want to skip back through the thread if you want lots of examples why it's not as clear cut as this at all; even in your own examples of included vs. excluded you're making an arbitrary distinction by applying different rules for "where I'm standing" vs. "me".
Ultimately the issue is that the language used in these kinds of spells could be clearer and more consistent, as many area spells phrase things slightly differently; if Wizards of the Coast want it to be clear then they really should rephrase it either:
Whether you hit or miss, all other creatures within 10 feet of the target must make a Dexterity saving throw
To exclude the target, or:
Whether you hit or miss, each creature within 10 feet of the target (including the target) must make a Dexterity saving throw.
To include the target.
But annoyingly they haven't; when you start going through similar spells you'll find that they all word things slightly differently, some explicitly including or excluding the original target or caster of the effect, while others don't. Those that have exclusions suggest that the language isn't clear enough on its own (as the exclusion would be redundant), but then some spells have neither an inclusion or exclusion. In the case of spells like Arms of Hadar you can apply common sense that the caster shouldn't be included, as it would be a much worse spell if you hit yourself with it as well, but that doesn't necessarily give us a general rule we can apply elsewhere (as we're using common sense to fill in a blank).
For lightning arrow the common sense argument is more complex; you could argue that since the original target takes half the initial damage on a miss, then it shouldn't need a second roll for full or half damage from the secondary effect, but that's not really a case with any precedent, since the rolls are different (and there are plenty of other attacks in the game that apply multiple rolls to a single target). Another argument could be that since the area blast is a smaller roll (2d8 vs 4d8) then it's meant to be a disipitating/jumping lightning effect from the original target, but that's weird mechanically because you could roll higher for the area damage than for the initial damage. The common sense argument I usually fall back to when encountering a weird rules issue is "is the stronger interpretation too strong?" and I'd argue the answer to that in this case is no, as it's not a huge amount of extra damage.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
You might want to skip back through the thread if you want lots of examples why it's not as clear cut as this at all; even in your own examples of included vs. excluded you're making an arbitrary distinction by applying different rules for "where I'm standing" vs. "me".
Ultimately the issue is that the language used in these kinds of spells could be clearer and more consistent, as many area spells phrase things slightly differently; if Wizards of the Coast want it to be clear then they really should rephrase it either:
Whether you hit or miss, all other creatures within 10 feet of the target must make a Dexterity saving throw
To exclude the target, or:
Whether you hit or miss, each creature within 10 feet of the target (including the target) must make a Dexterity saving throw.
To include the target.
But annoyingly they haven't; when you start going through similar spells you'll find that they all word things slightly differently, some explicitly including or excluding the original target or caster of the effect, while others don't. Those that have exclusions suggest that the language isn't clear enough on its own (as the exclusion would be redundant), but then some spells have neither an inclusion or exclusion. In the case of spells like Arms of Hadar you can apply common sense that the caster shouldn't be included, as it would be a much worse spell if you hit yourself with it as well, but that doesn't necessarily give us a general rule we can apply elsewhere (as we're using common sense to fill in a blank).
For lightning arrow the common sense argument is more complex; you could argue that since the original target takes half the initial damage on a miss, then it shouldn't need a second roll for full or half damage from the secondary effect, but that's not really a case with any precedent, since the rolls are different (and there are plenty of other attacks in the game that apply multiple rolls to a single target). Another argument could be that since the area blast is a smaller roll (2d8 vs 4d8) then it's meant to be a disipitating/jumping lightning effect from the original target, but that's weird mechanically because you could roll higher for the area damage than for the initial damage. The common sense argument I usually fall back to when encountering a weird rules issue is "is the stronger interpretation too strong?" and I'd argue the answer to that in this case is no, as it's not a huge amount of extra damage.
Arms of Hadar actually gave you examples that fits Arms of Hadar Perfectly. It's language "within 10 feet of you" is using you as a reference but excluding you as a target as he said. So you are not included.
Lightning Arrow uses the exact same kind of language as he mentioned as well for the matter of applying the splash damage. The target of the main shot takes the main shot and the Reference point of around that target without including that target takes the splash damage.
The Fact is that most spells use one of the two forms of language that he mentioned.
Also the additional Damage from Lightning Arrow that Splashes out is not where the additional Damage from using the ability that the original poster is talking about comes from. It's the fact that you get to apply attribute and other sources of damage that would apply to the regular damage of the Main Attack. The splash damage is still seperate and works on it's own and only affects people around the target that you hit.
The conciseness that you say is not there actually is and he defined it very well. And the couple that might be considered unclear make explicit that certain people do or do not apply when they do differ.
Level 9 character with a maxed main stat using a third level spell slot damage on their turn:
Paladin with longsword and divine smite hitting a single target = 41 damage
Spellcaster using fireball hitting two targets = 44.8 damage (average damage pass/fail)
Spellcaster using fireball hitting three targets = 67.2 damage (average damage pass/fail)
Hunter ranger with longbow, colossus slayer, and lightning arrow having one main target and one splash target = 43.75 (average damage pass/fail) (splash damage NOT effecting the main target)
Hunter ranger with longbow, colossus slayer, and lightning arrow having one main target and two splash target = 49.6 (average damage pass/fail) (splash damage NOT effecting the main target)
Hunter ranger with longbow, colossus slayer, and hail of thorns having one main target and one adjacent target = 48.25 (average damage pass/fail)
Arms of Hadar actually gave you examples that fits Arms of Hadar Perfectly. It's language "within 10 feet of you" is using you as a reference but excluding you as a target as he said.
It only excludes you because common sense says that it should (as the spell wouldn't be very good if it injured you as well); nothing in the language actually states this as clearly as you claim. You are both interpreting the phrase "within 10 feet of [creature]" to mean "anything from the edges of the creature's boundaries up to a distance of 10 feet, excluding the creature itself" but that's not what the word "within" means, it's far less specific than that, and certainly doesn't imply that something is outside of an area rather than inside it, which is why it's an unclear phrase to use on its own.
Arms of Hadar is an example of the phrase being unclear, but the intention behind the spell being reasonably clear in spite of it (because the intention is surely to harm only others), it's not an example of the language clearly stating what the spell does in total isolation.
The actual area of effect is strange, as the closest area of effect type that the rules specify is a sphere (which explicitly includes the point of origin) as per the Areas of Effect section, but what's being described for many of these spells isn't explicitly a sphere, but something measured from a creature, for which there is no specific area of effect rule. The closest we have then are the rules on range, but ranged spells such as Bless are not prevented from targeting their origin point (the caster), so this provides no clarification that the target should be excluded.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.
Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell's effect must be you (see “Areas of Effect” later in the this chapter).
If a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can choose yourself, unless the creature must be hostile or specifically a creature other than you. If you are in the area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself.
Spells such as burning hands and cone of cold cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.
A spell's description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere. Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how you position its point of origin. Typically, a point of origin is a point in space, but some spells have an area whose origin is a creature or an object.
Let's go over the examples you posted in that link and use what the PHB says because you seem to not understand English (Unless you think point of origin can include itself in which case burning hands and cone of cold hits the caster)
"Each creature within 30 feet of you takes 1d10 necrotic damage. You regain hit points equal to the sum of the necrotic damage dealt." (you are point of origin so you are not included)
sword burst cantrip (SCAG, p. 143): [...] Each creature within range, other than you, must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d6 force damage (Spell range is SELF 5 Feet (spells with just range can target and hit you) and will hit you unless other wise stated)
The Wild Magic Sorcerer's Wild Magic Surge table result on a d100 roll of 95-96: You and all creatures within 30 feet of you gain vulnerability to piercing damage for the next minute. (You are point of origin and are not included so they add "You" to the description)
the ice knife spell (EEPC, p. 19; XGtE, p. 157), which states: [...] Hit or miss, the shard then explodes. The target and each creature within 5 feet of it must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 2d6 cold damage(The target is the point of origin and will not be included so they add it in the description)
Arms of Hadar: Range/Area - Self(10 ft Sphere) Tendrils of dark energy erupt from you and batter all creatures within 10 feet of you (You are the Point of origin and text does not include you thus you are not included)
Anything else you don't understand? (See my previous examples for point of origin/reference)
Anything else you don't understand? (See my previous examples for point of origin/reference)
I'm afraid I've lost track of which claim you're making, because the post I'm quoting is a bunch of valid rules references that have no bearing whatsoever on Lightning Arrow. Lightning Arrow isn't an AOE - it uses the phrasing of thunderclap, which also isn't an AOE. Thunderclap has to specifically spare the caster because all creatures are always within any nonnegative real number of feet of themselves. Note that Thunderclap is range 5 feet, not self(5 foot radius); likewise, Lightning Arrow's secondary is range 10 feet, not 10 foot radius.
I'm afraid I've lost track of which claim you're making, because the post I'm quoting is a bunch of valid rules references that have no bearing whatsoever on Lightning Arrow. Lightning Arrow isn't an AOE - it uses the phrasing of thunderclap, which also isn't an AOE. Thunderclap has to specifically spare the caster because all creatures are always within any nonnegative real number of feet of themselves. Note that Thunderclap is range 5 feet, not self(5 foot radius); likewise, Lightning Arrow's secondary is range 10 feet, not 10 foot radius.
You are incorrect when you state that Thunderclap is not an AoE. It is an AoE. It covers things in an area. That is all an AoE is or does. Exclusions can be made in many very simple ways. and AoE's can function in more than one way. Thunder Clap and Fireball and even Bless for Example work off of the system of everything within a range of a certain point. Which is going to be a chosen corner of a square to define the area they function in. Thus if something should be excluded in that space. It needs to be named because you are within a distance of that point. It technically does not damage the point of origin.
However something like Lightning Arrow's splash damage component and Arms of Hadar and Sword Burst do not function from this Corner of a Square type of situation. Their point of origin for the effect that takes place is instead a creature. This means they are not within a distance of a point. This means that they are the point that everything else is measured from. Any phrasing of "Within X Feet Of" That is a second way of naming a radial distance that can be measured. It is also at the same time a way to exclude the target that is being measured from.
Here's the thing. People want to claim your never a non-negative distance from yourself. But the reverse is also true. Your never a non-positive distance away from yourself either unless you've somehow found a way to be in two places at once. Since this is measuring positive distances from You if you are the Target. Or another Creature if they are the point of origin for part or all of an effect. Then they are not a non-positive distance from themselves and thus not affected.
Because Everything that is affected by a spell like Sword Burst, the Arms of Hadar or the Splash damage of Lightning Arrow requires a target to be some positive distance from the center of origin without being over a certain distance from that point which is the maximum distance of the effect.
But So these are Different Ways of doing the Same thing. Much like the Shape of AoE effects can be different by being a cube, a circle, a cone, or a Line. How they exclude things can be done a couple different ways that are easy to understand as well as what does get included and just from what point things are measured.
You say you add your dexterity modifier, but cite Jeremy Crawford saying that in the context of lightning arrow, "normal damage" refers to "whatever damage the weapon normally deals." and then exemplifying it with "Damage = roll + modifiers.". So clearly the Dexterity modifier is part of "normal damage", and lightning arrow replaces the "normal damage" thus the modifier is not added since it was just replaced. You do still get an extra attack if you used the attack action with the extra attack feature though.
If the spell were intended to work as you describe, it would instead use the wording of Shillelagh which says "(...) the weapon's damage die becomes a d8".
Are might have a point. The first tweet the OP linked points to the exact opposite of the OP's conclusion. If damage = roll + modifiers, then replacing the damage clearly replaces the modifiers too.
The second tweet might indicate otherwise, but for some reason JC avoids actually answering the question he's replying to and "specific to the weapon you're using" can potentially mean different things depending on the scope at which you apply that statement.
... Kind of frustrating sometimes how these tweets will often just allude to an answer instead of saying "Yes" or "No" somewhere in there.
Jeremy Crawford sadly are like this with a lot of rules. He will say one thing to clear up one time and another thing right after. Truth is, whoever designed & wrote the ability didn't even consider modifiers. Until they reformat the spell description to clarify, there is no official answer, and your DM will be the one best suited to make a decision.
The only way I can interpret both tweets to be true is if the modifiers mentioned in the 2nd tweet does not include the dexterity modifier. Aka he is talking about additional modifiers from external sourced, like Sharpshooters +10 dmg.
I am pro ranger and would love for this to work where the 2d8 also hits the original target. However, I admit I don't think it does. If you are casting this at level 9 with a third level spell slot the main target would take 4d8 + 5 + (any other buffs like a magic bow or sharpshooter), so thats not bad! Then you have your second attack. And then you have the splash damage. This spell also works like hail of thorns in that if the main target is large or larger the area of effect for the splash damage is larger, as it is 10' from the original target. So the amount of targets can be quite a lot. I like hail of thorns at higher levels more than at levels 1 or even 2 sometimes. Mathematically you need the original target and two sp[lash targets from lightning arrow to match the same damage out put from a hail of thorns of with the same spell slot hitting just the original target and one splash target. nThat being said, it is WAY easier to hit more targets with lighting arrow than hail of thorns.
A level 5 fireball (from a level 9 character) would do an average (assuming failing the saving throw) 35 damage to one target and 70 damage to two targets. Fireball is much more difficult to use without hitting your allies. Not difficult, mind you, just more difficult than hail of thorns or lightning arrow. The same level baseline ranger casting hail of thorns and making two attacks would do (again failing their saving throws) 35.5 damage against one target and 52 damage against two targets. Don't forget to add the extra damage from whatever ranger subclass you are playing (around another 1d6-1d8, depending on subclass). A lighting arrow against one target does only 32.5 damage against one target. Against two it does 41.5. And 50.5 against 3. Again, subclass extra damage does a lot, and which spell you use with which subclass makes a difference. For example, the hunter and horizon walker make better use of lightning arrow, while the monster slayer, gloomstalker, and beast master make better use of hail of thorns.
I dislike the fireball comparisson since you just gloss over the fact that lightning arrow allows you to take an extra attack on top of the lightning shot.
Instead, we should look at the damage profile of very similair spells, in this case: the smite spells.
The smite spells all have a very similair buildup:
-Bonus action to cast
-Concentration
-Effect triggers on the next hit
-1dx bonus damage to the hit per level of the spell (x ranges from 6 to 10) (Thunderous smite being the only exception with 2d6 at level 1 but no scaling)
-Some added effect that is unique per smite (fear, ignite, blind, banish, staggering, pushback, marked)
If you make this comparisson, you can see that lightning arrow is really just a ranged smite spell that is not called smite:
-It adds 3d8 to your standard damage with a 3th level spell (well, it replaces your d8+dex with 4d8+dex so...)
-It gives you the added effect of also damaging people around the target
In the same way, hail of thorns is also a smite spell and ensnaring strike resembles smite spells closely (although here the damage is locked behind a saving throw so it is the least smitey of them all)
You are free to argue that smite spells in general don't get enough power when compared to fireball but this comparisson tells me very clearly that 4d8+dex to main target and 2d8 to other targets but not main target is very much in line with other spells and thus seems the way it was intended.
I mean you're not wrong but my counterpoint to that would be; how often do you see smite spells being used? In my experience at least, Paladins hardly ever use them once they realise how good Divine Smite already is. They're a category of spell (if category is the right term) that feels a bit underwhelming in general. There's also the issue of, with the other Smite spells, the rider effect applies to the original target, so I'm not sure it's really a conclusive argument anyway if the extra lightning blast is the rider for Lightning Arrow.
To be clear; I'm just setting out why I think it's fine to just deal the extra damage to the original target as the spell itself seems to suggest, as it's an average of 9 points difference at level 9, and half that if the target passes the save, it's hardly game changing either way. A spell should be self-contained, we shouldn't need to compare it with others to understand what it's saying in the first place; my comparison with Fireball is simply to highlight that if an issue with it would be whether it's overpowered to do both amounts of damage, then it's hardly making a huge difference in terms of how much damage it can do compared to spells of the same level, especially on a half caster who has more limited casting anyway.
I'm of the view that there isn't a solid RAW ruling either way, as it's relying on comparisons with other spells in both cases, so each group or DM is free to rule it however they like. The key consideration really is whether an extra 9-ish damage on a Ranger's limited spell slots is going to break your campaign.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Oh, I don't think allowing it is over powered at all. I just think people might freak out over it. Some spells (already listed) say the main target does or does not get the splash damage, including hail of thorns that wasn't mentioned above. Lighting arrow doesn't explicitly say so one way or another so you are 100% correct that its open to DM decision. I would LOVE for it to hit the main target as well, and don't think it's too much at all. I'd love it playing as a ranger and would allow it as a DM.
But these two tweets contradict each other. Which of these is correct?
Tweet 1: The term "normal damage" has no special meaning in the rules. Context determines the meaning. For example, the lightning arrow spell causes a weapon to deal the lightning damage in the spell in place of whatever damage the weapon normally deals. Damage = roll + modifiers. -> This tweet explicitly declares the modifiers to be part of damage, so the lightning damage replaces modifiers.
Tweet 2: The lightning arrow spell replaces the weapon's normal damage. Roll the damage in the spell, and apply any modifiers that apply to your damage and that aren't specific to the weapon you're using. -> This tweet says to apply modifiers after the spell replaces damage.
So which are we going with?
Here's the rule in the PHB for reference, for what it's worth.
Each weapon. spell. and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target. Magic weapons, special abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage.
Sorry, it was a discovery for me at the time so I didn't think a lot of people were using it correctly and didn't put that as an option. My friends and I were all looking/using it wrong.
You can find my published homebrew Spells here.
It is worth noting that lightning arrow has two features just like hail of thorns (one of them just like any AoE spell or effect):
1. The more creatures in the area of effect the more amount of damage this spell puts out. So a divine smite or single target spell with an attack roll gets a damage bump from a critical hit, while a spell like this is does more damage and is great for clearing groups of enemies. One thing I like about these spells versus something like fireball is it has more of a pinpoint targeting effect that plays more tactically.
2. The larger the original target of these spells, the larger the area of effect is for the splash damage. This is effective on it's own but doubles down on point number one. So while these spells aren't meant for killing the BBEG, by targeting the B(H)(G)BEG you get greater effect of the spells area of effect.
Bonus tip, these spells are great for attacking creatures on vehicles (infernal war machines, carts, ships, etc.), mounted enemies (oath breaker paladin, vampire on a nightmare, etc.), and in close quarters (dungeon or cave hallways and small rooms, city streets and alleys, rooms, huts, etc.).
Extra bonus tip, beast companions can grapple as they take the attack action, and several beasts grapple and /or restrain on a hit automatically.
It does not. It is in the English being used that clears this up. Let me give you 2 examples.
Not included: You stand in a group of people and you say "Everyone within 10ft of me (the target) move forward 1 step". You do not move forward because you are the point of reference here and are not included.
Included: You stand in a group of people and you say "Everyone within a 10ft sphere where I'm standing (the target) move forward 1 step". Now you have designated an origin spot where you are NOW included.
Not included - Thunder Wave: A wave of thunderous force sweeps out from you. Each creature in a 15-foot cube originating from you (you are the point of reference here and are not included) must make a Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, a creature takes 2d8 thunder damage and is pushed 10 feet away from you. On a successful save, the creature takes half as much damage and isn't pushed.
Included, but had to specify to not include - Thunderclap: You create a burst of thunderous sound that can be heard up to 100 feet away. Each creature within range (5ft origin where you are standing (included)), other than you(had to specify), must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or take 1d6 thunder damage.
You can find my published homebrew Spells here.
You might want to skip back through the thread if you want lots of examples why it's not as clear cut as this at all; even in your own examples of included vs. excluded you're making an arbitrary distinction by applying different rules for "where I'm standing" vs. "me".
Ultimately the issue is that the language used in these kinds of spells could be clearer and more consistent, as many area spells phrase things slightly differently; if Wizards of the Coast want it to be clear then they really should rephrase it either:
To exclude the target, or:
To include the target.
But annoyingly they haven't; when you start going through similar spells you'll find that they all word things slightly differently, some explicitly including or excluding the original target or caster of the effect, while others don't. Those that have exclusions suggest that the language isn't clear enough on its own (as the exclusion would be redundant), but then some spells have neither an inclusion or exclusion. In the case of spells like Arms of Hadar you can apply common sense that the caster shouldn't be included, as it would be a much worse spell if you hit yourself with it as well, but that doesn't necessarily give us a general rule we can apply elsewhere (as we're using common sense to fill in a blank).
For lightning arrow the common sense argument is more complex; you could argue that since the original target takes half the initial damage on a miss, then it shouldn't need a second roll for full or half damage from the secondary effect, but that's not really a case with any precedent, since the rolls are different (and there are plenty of other attacks in the game that apply multiple rolls to a single target). Another argument could be that since the area blast is a smaller roll (2d8 vs 4d8) then it's meant to be a disipitating/jumping lightning effect from the original target, but that's weird mechanically because you could roll higher for the area damage than for the initial damage. The common sense argument I usually fall back to when encountering a weird rules issue is "is the stronger interpretation too strong?" and I'd argue the answer to that in this case is no, as it's not a huge amount of extra damage.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Arms of Hadar actually gave you examples that fits Arms of Hadar Perfectly. It's language "within 10 feet of you" is using you as a reference but excluding you as a target as he said. So you are not included.
Lightning Arrow uses the exact same kind of language as he mentioned as well for the matter of applying the splash damage. The target of the main shot takes the main shot and the Reference point of around that target without including that target takes the splash damage.
The Fact is that most spells use one of the two forms of language that he mentioned.
Also the additional Damage from Lightning Arrow that Splashes out is not where the additional Damage from using the ability that the original poster is talking about comes from. It's the fact that you get to apply attribute and other sources of damage that would apply to the regular damage of the Main Attack. The splash damage is still seperate and works on it's own and only affects people around the target that you hit.
The conciseness that you say is not there actually is and he defined it very well. And the couple that might be considered unclear make explicit that certain people do or do not apply when they do differ.
Level 9 character with a maxed main stat using a third level spell slot damage on their turn:
Paladin with longsword and divine smite hitting a single target = 41 damage
Spellcaster using fireball hitting two targets = 44.8 damage (average damage pass/fail)
Spellcaster using fireball hitting three targets = 67.2 damage (average damage pass/fail)
Hunter ranger with longbow, colossus slayer, and lightning arrow having one main target and one splash target = 43.75 (average damage pass/fail) (splash damage NOT effecting the main target)
Hunter ranger with longbow, colossus slayer, and lightning arrow having one main target and two splash target = 49.6 (average damage pass/fail) (splash damage NOT effecting the main target)
Hunter ranger with longbow, colossus slayer, and hail of thorns having one main target and one adjacent target = 48.25 (average damage pass/fail)
It only excludes you because common sense says that it should (as the spell wouldn't be very good if it injured you as well); nothing in the language actually states this as clearly as you claim. You are both interpreting the phrase "within 10 feet of [creature]" to mean "anything from the edges of the creature's boundaries up to a distance of 10 feet, excluding the creature itself" but that's not what the word "within" means, it's far less specific than that, and certainly doesn't imply that something is outside of an area rather than inside it, which is why it's an unclear phrase to use on its own.
Arms of Hadar is an example of the phrase being unclear, but the intention behind the spell being reasonably clear in spite of it (because the intention is surely to harm only others), it's not an example of the language clearly stating what the spell does in total isolation.
The actual area of effect is strange, as the closest area of effect type that the rules specify is a sphere (which explicitly includes the point of origin) as per the Areas of Effect section, but what's being described for many of these spells isn't explicitly a sphere, but something measured from a creature, for which there is no specific area of effect rule. The closest we have then are the rules on range, but ranged spells such as Bless are not prevented from targeting their origin point (the caster), so this provides no clarification that the target should be excluded.
There have been multiple questions on this basic point (here's one on stack exchange which covers quite a lot of examples), but they always end up with "the DM decides", because the rules don't.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/spellcasting#Range
Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.
Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell's effect must be you (see “Areas of Effect” later in the this chapter).
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/spellcasting#TargetingYourself
If a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can choose yourself, unless the creature must be hostile or specifically a creature other than you. If you are in the area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/spellcasting#AreasofEffect
Spells such as burning hands and cone of cold cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.
A spell's description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere. Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how you position its point of origin. Typically, a point of origin is a point in space, but some spells have an area whose origin is a creature or an object.
Let's go over the examples you posted in that link and use what the PHB says because you seem to not understand English (Unless you think point of origin can include itself in which case burning hands and cone of cold hits the caster)
"Each creature within 30 feet of you takes 1d10 necrotic damage. You regain hit points equal to the sum of the necrotic damage dealt." (you are point of origin so you are not included)
sword burst cantrip (SCAG, p. 143): [...] Each creature within range, other than you, must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d6 force damage (Spell range is SELF 5 Feet (spells with just range can target and hit you) and will hit you unless other wise stated)
The Wild Magic Sorcerer's Wild Magic Surge table result on a d100 roll of 95-96: You and all creatures within 30 feet of you gain vulnerability to piercing damage for the next minute. (You are point of origin and are not included so they add "You" to the description)
the ice knife spell (EEPC, p. 19; XGtE, p. 157), which states: [...] Hit or miss, the shard then explodes. The target and each creature within 5 feet of it must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 2d6 cold damage (The target is the point of origin and will not be included so they add it in the description)
Anything else you don't understand? (See my previous examples for point of origin/reference)
You can find my published homebrew Spells here.
I'm afraid I've lost track of which claim you're making, because the post I'm quoting is a bunch of valid rules references that have no bearing whatsoever on Lightning Arrow. Lightning Arrow isn't an AOE - it uses the phrasing of thunderclap, which also isn't an AOE. Thunderclap has to specifically spare the caster because all creatures are always within any nonnegative real number of feet of themselves. Note that Thunderclap is range 5 feet, not self(5 foot radius); likewise, Lightning Arrow's secondary is range 10 feet, not 10 foot radius.
You are incorrect when you state that Thunderclap is not an AoE. It is an AoE. It covers things in an area. That is all an AoE is or does. Exclusions can be made in many very simple ways. and AoE's can function in more than one way. Thunder Clap and Fireball and even Bless for Example work off of the system of everything within a range of a certain point. Which is going to be a chosen corner of a square to define the area they function in. Thus if something should be excluded in that space. It needs to be named because you are within a distance of that point. It technically does not damage the point of origin.
However something like Lightning Arrow's splash damage component and Arms of Hadar and Sword Burst do not function from this Corner of a Square type of situation. Their point of origin for the effect that takes place is instead a creature. This means they are not within a distance of a point. This means that they are the point that everything else is measured from. Any phrasing of "Within X Feet Of" That is a second way of naming a radial distance that can be measured. It is also at the same time a way to exclude the target that is being measured from.
Here's the thing. People want to claim your never a non-negative distance from yourself. But the reverse is also true. Your never a non-positive distance away from yourself either unless you've somehow found a way to be in two places at once. Since this is measuring positive distances from You if you are the Target. Or another Creature if they are the point of origin for part or all of an effect. Then they are not a non-positive distance from themselves and thus not affected.
Because Everything that is affected by a spell like Sword Burst, the Arms of Hadar or the Splash damage of Lightning Arrow requires a target to be some positive distance from the center of origin without being over a certain distance from that point which is the maximum distance of the effect.
But So these are Different Ways of doing the Same thing. Much like the Shape of AoE effects can be different by being a cube, a circle, a cone, or a Line. How they exclude things can be done a couple different ways that are easy to understand as well as what does get included and just from what point things are measured.
where's the this is how I always used it poll option?
You say you add your dexterity modifier, but cite Jeremy Crawford saying that in the context of lightning arrow, "normal damage" refers to "whatever damage the weapon normally deals." and then exemplifying it with "Damage = roll + modifiers.". So clearly the Dexterity modifier is part of "normal damage", and lightning arrow replaces the "normal damage" thus the modifier is not added since it was just replaced. You do still get an extra attack if you used the attack action with the extra attack feature though.
If the spell were intended to work as you describe, it would instead use the wording of Shillelagh which says "(...) the weapon's damage die becomes a d8".
Are might have a point. The first tweet the OP linked points to the exact opposite of the OP's conclusion. If damage = roll + modifiers, then replacing the damage clearly replaces the modifiers too.
The second tweet might indicate otherwise, but for some reason JC avoids actually answering the question he's replying to and "specific to the weapon you're using" can potentially mean different things depending on the scope at which you apply that statement.
... Kind of frustrating sometimes how these tweets will often just allude to an answer instead of saying "Yes" or "No" somewhere in there.
Jeremy Crawford sadly are like this with a lot of rules. He will say one thing to clear up one time and another thing right after. Truth is, whoever designed & wrote the ability didn't even consider modifiers. Until they reformat the spell description to clarify, there is no official answer, and your DM will be the one best suited to make a decision.
The only way I can interpret both tweets to be true is if the modifiers mentioned in the 2nd tweet does not include the dexterity modifier. Aka he is talking about additional modifiers from external sourced, like Sharpshooters +10 dmg.
There should've been a poll option for, "I've been using it correctly because I read the spell and did what it says it does."