Actually a spell with a range of “self” does target the caster and qualifies for the 15th level ability share spells.
This I can agree with. The cone really hasn’t got anything to do with the range. The spell targets the caster and the effect is something that happens in a cone emanating from the caster. That effect can’t be placed away from the caster, so it has no range.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Since we are temporarily theory crafting high-level play strategies, and assuming you are using the multi class optional rules, here’s a fun little exercise!
Go to the section on DND Beyond that lists all the spells. Filter them to only show cantrips and 1st level spells. Then organize them by range and look for “self” and “touch”.
Use your next level up to multiclass into a full spellcaster (druid and cleric are particularly great for a ranger) and have some fun blasting the battlefield alongside your beast companion! Cantrips are particularly good at this point as we all know they scale by overall level and not class level.
Whether you're crazy about the comparison or not, the math checks out. The wolf is CR 5 at 20th level. And, unlike the elementals, it's attacks count as magical. And a pony (CR 1/8) at 20th level with plate armor barding is CR 6.
If you want to call it CR 5 I'm not going to debate you but an elemental is stronger than the pet. What CR we call it isn't all that useful. That's not the important piece of what we're debating. What is useful is how will it fair in a fight geared for level 20 characters. My argument is that the beast master's pet is going to get knocked out easily. At least by this point it can survive a breath attack from a dragon because of Absorb Elements.
And the spell combination does, in fact, work. Crawford said so 5 years ago, and as far as I can tell he hasn't walked it back. Which means, if a ranger wanted magic initiate, they could get a lot of interesting spells that can work with it.
Specifically, Crawford said that spells that target self, target the caster. I wasn't debating that. The range of the spell we're talking about is a cone originating on self. Not self. Read your quote again. "A range of self means the caster is the target, as in shield, or the point of origin, as in thunderwave (PH, 202)." In the case of Conjure Barrage, the Range is Self (Cone 60ft) meaning the target is creatures in a 60 ft cone originating from the caster. It does NOT mean that the casting ranger is the target. Crawford didn't say anything about a cone originating on self being the same as the ranger being the target of a spell like Conjure Barrage specifically for the purposes of working with the Beast Master feature. I'd need a ruling that specific for me to agree this works. I agree that spells that target self work, like shield, or absorb elements. I also agree that spells that target the ranger, like Cure Wounds or Stone Skin work. But a spell like Conjure Barrage should not work according to any rules or rulings on rules I've seen. If you or your DM want to rule it that way on your table then that's great for you. That's not RAW or RAI though.
A mile is 20 minutes foot, assuming the terrain isn't difficult. It lets you know what threats are in the area and that they're close by.
I agree and actually think it's a potentially fun feature when you can use it to triangulate a way to find something. If a GM gave me a puzzle to find a tomb in a large area and I was able to triangulate it's location using this over a course of a few in game hours, I would find that to be a really fun and memorable start to an adventure. It costs some spell slots though and is generally a pretty situational thing.
And the spell combination does, in fact, work. Crawford said so 5 years ago, and as far as I can tell he hasn't walked it back. Which means, if a ranger wanted magic initiate, they could get a lot of interesting spells that can work with it.
Specifically, Crawford said that spells that target self, target the caster. I wasn't debating that. The range of the spell we're talking about is a cone originating on self. Not self. Read your quote again. "A range of self means the caster is the target, as in shield, or the point of origin, as in thunderwave (PH, 202)." In the case of Conjure Barrage, the Range is Self (Cone 60ft) meaning the target is creatures in a 60 ft cone originating from the caster. It does NOT mean that the casting ranger is the target. Crawford didn't say anything about a cone originating on self being the same as the ranger being the target of a spell like Conjure Barrage specifically for the purposes of working with the Beast Master feature. I'd need a ruling that specific for me to agree this works. I agree that spells that target self work, like shield, or absorb elements. I also agree that spells that target the ranger, like Cure Wounds or Stone Skin work. But a spell like Conjure Barrage should not work according to any rules or rulings on rules I've seen. If you or your DM want to rule it that way on your table then that's great for you. That's not the way it should be working though.
"A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect." (PHB p. 204) The target of Conjure Barrage is not 'creatures in a 60 ft cone originating from the caster'. It's just not. Nothing in the rules says they are. In fact, you could cast Conjure Barrage to cover an area where you can't see anyone, and if there is an invisible creature in it that creature will be affected.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
And the spell combination does, in fact, work. Crawford said so 5 years ago, and as far as I can tell he hasn't walked it back. Which means, if a ranger wanted magic initiate, they could get a lot of interesting spells that can work with it.
Specifically, Crawford said that spells that target self, target the caster. I wasn't debating that. The range of the spell we're talking about is a cone originating on self. Not self. Read your quote again. "A range of self means the caster is the target, as in shield, or the point of origin, as in thunderwave (PH, 202)." In the case of Conjure Barrage, the Range is Self (Cone 60ft) meaning the target is creatures in a 60 ft cone originating from the caster. It does NOT mean that the casting ranger is the target. Crawford didn't say anything about a cone originating on self being the same as the ranger being the target of a spell like Conjure Barrage specifically for the purposes of working with the Beast Master feature. I'd need a ruling that specific for me to agree this works. I agree that spells that target self work, like shield, or absorb elements. I also agree that spells that target the ranger, like Cure Wounds or Stone Skin work. But a spell like Conjure Barrage should not work according to any rules or rulings on rules I've seen. If you or your DM want to rule it that way on your table then that's great for you. That's not RAW or RAI though.
So a spell with a range of self targets the caster. And beginning at 15th level, when you cast a spell targeting yourself, you can also affect your beast companion with the spell if the beast is within 30 feet of you. The target of the spell is the caster, and a cone originates from them. And if their beast companion is within 30 feet, because they targeted themself with a spell, the beast companion is also affected and can produce another cone.
I find it weird how you are attempting to argue against Conjure Barrage but not Thunderwave, which is specifically given as an example. Does the latter now not target the caster, even though JC said it did? Either JC is right or wrong, but he can't be both.
And the spell combination does, in fact, work. Crawford said so 5 years ago, and as far as I can tell he hasn't walked it back. Which means, if a ranger wanted magic initiate, they could get a lot of interesting spells that can work with it.
Specifically, Crawford said that spells that target self, target the caster. I wasn't debating that. The range of the spell we're talking about is a cone originating on self. Not self. Read your quote again. "A range of self means the caster is the target, as in shield, or the point of origin, as in thunderwave (PH, 202)." In the case of Conjure Barrage, the Range is Self (Cone 60ft) meaning the target is creatures in a 60 ft cone originating from the caster. It does NOT mean that the casting ranger is the target. Crawford didn't say anything about a cone originating on self being the same as the ranger being the target of a spell like Conjure Barrage specifically for the purposes of working with the Beast Master feature. I'd need a ruling that specific for me to agree this works. I agree that spells that target self work, like shield, or absorb elements. I also agree that spells that target the ranger, like Cure Wounds or Stone Skin work. But a spell like Conjure Barrage should not work according to any rules or rulings on rules I've seen. If you or your DM want to rule it that way on your table then that's great for you. That's not RAW or RAI though.
So a spell with a range of self targets the caster. And beginning at 15th level, when you cast a spell targeting yourself, you can also affect your beast companion with the spell if the beast is within 30 feet of you. The target of the spell is the caster, and a cone originates from them. And if their beast companion is within 30 feet, because they targeted themself with a spell, the beast companion is also affected and can produce another cone.
I find it weird how you are attempting to argue against Conjure Barrage but not Thunderwave, which is specifically given as an example. Does the latter now not target the caster, even though JC said it did? Either JC is right or wrong, but he can't be both.
It doesn't work with either of those two spells. I'm not sure how I misrepresented my position. Let's see if I can break the quote from Crawford down as simply as possible.
"A range of self means the caster is the target, as in shield,or the point of origin, as in thunderwave (PH, 202)." Or is exclusive which means only one of these things is true.
Only one of the following can be true when looking at a spell with the range of self:
The caster is the target, as in shield [range: self].
OR
The caster is the point of origin, as in thunderwave [self (15ft cube)].
Now which one of these do you think Conjure Barrage [range: self(60ft cone)] fits in? To me it looks like the second option. The caster is the point of origin for Conjure Barrage, not the target.
Okay, so let's look at spells with a point of origin. Say, Conjure Volley as it's another ranger spell. The spellcaster chooses a point within range. Now, I can't think of anyone who's going to argue that choosing a point is fundamentally different from targeting a point, but I digress. You choose a point and the spell affects an area around that point. Now, are we seriously trying to argue that casting a spell with a point of origin being the spellcaster isn't also choosing...targeting the spellcaster?
###
Even if we did and decided to drop Conjure Barrage, the beast master doesn't really need the extra damage. It's more than competitive on that front, and despite their low hit points, the beast companion's AC is formidable. And there is still a menagerie of other spells that can still be shared. You can't overlap areas of Pass without Trace for +20, but you can cover twice the area. Both the ranger and beast master can each restrain a target with Ensnaring Strike; using the ranger's Spell Save DC to do it. If they're both caught in the AoE of a suitable effect, Absorb Elements can protect them both and give them a potential damage buff.
Okay, so let's look at spells with a point of origin. Say, Conjure Volley as it's another ranger spell. The spellcaster chooses a point within range. Now, I can't think of anyone who's going to argue that choosing a point is fundamentally different from targeting a point, but I digress. You choose a point and the spell affects an area around that point. Now, are we seriously trying to argue that casting a spell with a point of origin being the spellcaster isn't also choosing...targeting the spellcaster?
I am really confused I think I understand what you're saying. You're saying that a spell like Fireball targeting a point and emanating from that point to an area is the same as a spell like conjure volley targeting the caster and emanating out from the caster. I have two issues with this interpretation. First, Fireball explicitly says it targets a point you choose whereas the spell conjure volley does not. Additionally, fireball effects the point of origin while conjure barrage does not.
Let's move on from a rules discussion and use a modicum of sense. If you fire a bunch of arrows at a series of enemies, are you the target? That's what you're arguing. I realize we're dealing with magic in a fictitious game but it still seems ludicrous to suggest that you're the target of this spell. I think we can just look at the definition of the word target in any dictionary and see what the target of this spell is.
Even if we did and decided to drop Conjure Barrage, the beast master doesn't really need the extra damage. It's more than competitive on that front, and despite their low hit points, the beast companion's AC is formidable. And there is still a menagerie of other spells that can still be shared. You can't overlap areas of Pass without Trace for +20, but you can cover twice the area. Both the ranger and beast master can each restrain a target with Ensnaring Strike; using the ranger's Spell Save DC to do it. If they're both caught in the AoE of a suitable effect, Absorb Elements can protect them both and give them a potential damage buff.
I agree about the damage. I think ranger damage is good and I've said as much. The pet's AC is fine but it's nothing special. At level 3 a wolf has an AC of 16 which isn't bad. Comparable to a rogue or fighter without a shield. At 20 it's 19 which still isn't great but there is nothing saying you cannot give it barding.
There are plenty of good spells that work well with Shared Spells. Those are some good ones you've listed! You could always take 5 levels in druid to augment that even more. Might be a fun build.
Let's move on from a rules discussion and use a modicum of sense. If you fire a bunch of arrows at a series of enemies, are you the target? That's what you're arguing. I realize we're dealing with magic in a fictitious game but it still seems ludicrous to suggest that you're the target of this spell. I think we can just look at the definition of the word target in any dictionary and see what the target of this spell is.
But you’re not firing arrows, let alone at anyone. You’re causing a bunch of arrows to fly through an area, after which they disappear. Anyone in the area has to make a saving throw vs getting hurt by them. So, you don’t fire them so much as making them appear, and how they might harm those enemies doesn’t use a mechanic similar to how attacks work in the game (that would involve ACs instead of saves). Those arrows aren’t targeting anything, they just fly and anything that might be in the way is liable to get hit.
In fact, you can cast the spell so the cone covers a completely empty area. How would you consider what’s in The area the target if there’s nothing in there that could even function as a target?
When a character casts any spell, the same basic rules are followed, regardless of the character's class or the spell's effects.
Each spell description begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.
Range
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range. For a spell like magic missile, the target is a creature. For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts.
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.
Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise.
Targets
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 an area of effect (described below).
Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise.
A Clear Path to the Target
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover. If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.
Targeting Yourself
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.
Let's move on from a rules discussion and use a modicum of sense. If you fire a bunch of arrows at a series of enemies, are you the target? That's what you're arguing. I realize we're dealing with magic in a fictitious game but it still seems ludicrous to suggest that you're the target of this spell. I think we can just look at the definition of the word target in any dictionary and see what the target of this spell is.
But you’re not firing arrows, let alone at anyone. You’re causing a bunch of arrows to fly through an area, after which they disappear. Anyone in the area has to make a saving throw vs getting hurt by them. So, you don’t fire them so much as making them appear, and how they might harm those enemies doesn’t use a mechanic similar to how attacks work in the game (that would involve ACs instead of saves). Those arrows aren’t targeting anything, they just fly and anything that might be in the way is liable to get hit.
In fact, you can cast the spell so the cone covers a completely empty area. How would you consider what’s in The area the target if there’s nothing in there that could even function as a target?
If this spell doesn't hit anything then there was no target. It just fired off into an area similar to how if you fired a gun into an area where there was nothing.
Let's apply Occam's razor. Nowhere in the rules does it explicitly say this works. Nowhere have we found a quote from Crawford or any other authority that says it works. Spells and abilities say exactly what they do and nothing more. Conjure barrage does not explicitly say it targets the caster so it doesn't. Moreover, it just seems bizarre to argue it targets the caster when the only effect it has on the caster is to cause them to be the point of origin. Target is defined as "a person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack" (Yes, I googled define target). The simplist solution is that the caster is not the the target of conjure barrage and this does not work with the share spells feature.
I almost agreed with you when it was claimed that Crawford had already stated this worked. But I decided to read the link before posting and realized the quote was actually confirming my exact position. If you can provide any rules in a book that explicitly says this works, or any authority that says it does, I'll agree with you. Short of that, I think we've gone in enough circles on this topic and it's time to move on.
Conjure barrage does not explicitly say it targets the caster so it doesn't. Moreover, it just seems bizarre to argue it targets the caster when the only effect it has on the caster is to cause them to be the point of origin. Target is defined as "a person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack" (Yes, I googled define target).
Range: Self explicitly says it targets the caster. That's exactly what Range: Self means. If you're going to tell me it doesn't when the rules say it does, I'm not sure we can have a discussion based on logic anymore.
It doesn't seem bizarre to me that the only effect on the caster is making him the point of origin, since that's exactly what the area of effect spell rules say it does.
Please don't use dictionary definitions when the rules are written down in the rulebook, not in any dictionary. It's 100% all in the PHB.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Conjure barrage does not explicitly say it targets the caster so it doesn't. Moreover, it just seems bizarre to argue it targets the caster when the only effect it has on the caster is to cause them to be the point of origin. Target is defined as "a person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack" (Yes, I googled define target).
Range: Self explicitly says it targets the caster. That's exactly what Range: Self means. If you're going to tell me it doesn't when the rules say it does, I'm not sure we can have a discussion based on logic anymore.
It doesn't seem bizarre to me that the only effect on the caster is making him the point of origin, since that's exactly what the area of effect spell rules say it does.
Please don't use dictionary definitions when the rules are written down in the rulebook, not in any dictionary. It's 100% all in the PHB.
I do think there is a lot of language and nuance to navigate with regards to this discussion. Whether this is the proper place for it, or whether it deserves its own thread, I'm not sure. But we can poke around a little.
Early I mentioned Conjure Volley, which does not designate those caught within the area of effect as targets. It uses the fairly neutral, if specific, creature. Contrast this with Fireball, which does call those within the area of effect targets. I'm not 100% sure this is important from a mechanical perspective, but I don't think it was an accident. Contrast these two with three other spells which originate from the spellcaster, using themself as a point of origin: Burning Hands, Cone of Cold, and Thunderwave. Each one has a range of Self (X ft cone), and each one uses the term "creature" and not "target".
So, assuming the language matters and those in the area of effect are not targets, is the spellcaster the target? Or does the spell not have a target? Can a spell even be cast without a target?
Conjure barrage does not explicitly say it targets the caster so it doesn't. Moreover, it just seems bizarre to argue it targets the caster when the only effect it has on the caster is to cause them to be the point of origin. Target is defined as "a person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack" (Yes, I googled define target).
Range: Self explicitly says it targets the caster. That's exactly what Range: Self means. If you're going to tell me it doesn't when the rules say it does, I'm not sure we can have a discussion based on logic anymore.
It doesn't seem bizarre to me that the only effect on the caster is making him the point of origin, since that's exactly what the area of effect spell rules say it does.
Please don't use dictionary definitions when the rules are written down in the rulebook, not in any dictionary. It's 100% all in the PHB.
I am not having any issues with logic and I really can't spell out this out logically any clearer than I already have. I'll try to recap as clearly as I can.
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. - PHB
Range of self targets the caster. I'm not questioning this. Range of Self when followed by an area alternatively means the caster is the point of origin. Both the PHB and Crawford distinguish this scenario as different than Range: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). - PHB
Note that nowhere does it say this scenario has the caster as a target.
"A range of self means the caster is the target, as in shield, or the point of origin, as in thunderwave (PH, 202)." - Jeremy Crawford (author of the book).
One more time, Crawford is saying a range of self means one of two things. In the case of shield, he is saying the caster is the target. In the case of Thunderwave, he is saying the caster is the point of origin for the spell. If he said "A range of self means the caster is the target, as in shield, and can additionally mean the point of origin, as in thunderwave," then you'd be correct. But he didn't say that. He specifically differentiated the two. Range: Self and Range: Self(60ft cone) are different things. According to the person that literally wrote the rules, a range of self means the caster is the target or the caster is the point of origin. In the case of Thunderwave, Conjure Barrage, and any other spell with the range described as self(x ft line, cone, square, or whatever else), the self means the caster is the point of origin.
I'm done arguing this. I cannot possibly be more clear. Maybe that's on me. We've gone around and around making the same points repeatedly. Let's move on. If you want to argue this any further, hop on twitter and @JeremyECrawford to ask him straight up if Conjure Barrage works with the Share Spells feature of the Beast Master. If he responds, then the debate can be resolved one way or the other.
Conjure barrage does not explicitly say it targets the caster so it doesn't. Moreover, it just seems bizarre to argue it targets the caster when the only effect it has on the caster is to cause them to be the point of origin. Target is defined as "a person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack" (Yes, I googled define target).
Range: Self explicitly says it targets the caster. That's exactly what Range: Self means. If you're going to tell me it doesn't when the rules say it does, I'm not sure we can have a discussion based on logic anymore.
It doesn't seem bizarre to me that the only effect on the caster is making him the point of origin, since that's exactly what the area of effect spell rules say it does.
Please don't use dictionary definitions when the rules are written down in the rulebook, not in any dictionary. It's 100% all in the PHB.
I do think there is a lot of language and nuance to navigate with regards to this discussion. Whether this is the proper place for it, or whether it deserves its own thread, I'm not sure. But we can poke around a little.
Early I mentioned Conjure Volley, which does not designate those caught within the area of effect as targets. It uses the fairly neutral, if specific, creature. Contrast this with Fireball, which does call those within the area of effect targets. I'm not 100% sure this is important from a mechanical perspective, but I don't think it was an accident. Contrast these two with three other spells which originate from the spellcaster, using themself as a point of origin: Burning Hands, Cone of Cold, and Thunderwave. Each one has a range of Self (X ft cone), and each one uses the term "creature" and not "target".
So, assuming the language matters and those in the area of effect are not targets, is the spellcaster the target? Or does the spell not have a target? Can a spell even be cast without a target?
I think the target would be the area of effect if anything.
5e tends to be as simple as possible. I think if this were the way you're suggesting, it would be explicitly spelled out somewhere.
It’s from the sorcerer’s twin spell meta magic feature and the blurb from the sage advice compendium about it.
Twinned Spell
When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn’t have a range of self, you can spend a number of sorcery points equal to the spell’s level to target a second creature in range with the same spell (1 sorcery point if the spell is a cantrip).
To be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level. For example, magic missile and scorching ray aren’t eligible, but ray of frost and chromatic orb are.
Can my sorcerer use Twinned Spell to affect a particular spell?You can use Twinned Spell on a spell that…
targets only one creature
doesn’t have a range of self
is incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’scurrentlevel
If you know this rule yet are still unsure whether a particular spell qualifies for Twinned Spell, consult with your DM, who has the final say. If the two of you are curious about our design intent, here is the list of things that disqualify a spell for us:
The spell has a range of self.
The spell can target an object.
The spell allows you to choose more than one creature to be affected by it, particularly at the level you’re casting the spell. Some spells increase their number of potential targets when you cast them at a higher level.
The spell can force more than one creature to make a savingthrowbeforethespell’sdurationexpires.
The spell lets you make a roll of any kind that can affect more than one creature before the spell’s durationexpires.
Let me clarify the argument that is being by 01011000Lehrer.
The argument against can be summarized in "A range of self means the caster is the target, as in shield, or the point of origin, as in thunderwave", and that due to the wording of "you are target or you are not target as in thunderwave", that implies spells like Thunderwave makes you not the target.
Alt. if you hate RAI for some reason, they got you covered too.
"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."
Let me rephrase that, spells where the target is you, have a range of self. Other spells that have a range of self are those where you are the origin. If spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate had you has a target, then the whole "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" would of just been deleted as it would of fell under the first sentence.
Edit: Just in case, I'll make that clearer.
The general rule is that all spells with a range of self target you.
However, there is a specific rule that states that spells where you are the origin are also marked as self. The specific rule should override the general rule, and if that wasn't the case, there would be no need of a specific rule it would be covered by the general rule.
Personally, I think rangers are a perfectly good class. The main problem is just that they are class that requires the most mastery to do average damage.
Rogues just need to figure out how to not have disadvantage, fighters just need to not use a dagger as their main weapon. Even a warlock with no invocations who spams poison spray without Hex, will probably do more damage than a ranger who doesn't use very specific spells, doesn't spams a single subclass ability which may have a ton of trap options that might even reduce their damage (cough cough Beastmaster).
By the time that ranger figures out how to be a ranger, that warlock just grabs Eldritch Blast & Hex and keeps up probably even better than the ranger. At the same time the Warlock has a bunch of cool shiny invocations, 5th level slots, etc. The fighter & paladin do their special nova, and the Wizard shoots a deviating fireball. Then your ranger comes up and goes "I do a extra 1d6 damage", it's effective yes, but not very shiny.
Out of combat, the ranger's abilities finally get to shine in the least used pillar exploration. Most DMs don't use exploration as it's mostly just a bunch of dice rolls, many of which are skipped via ranger, and the others can be easily skipped with a couple spells. Granted, if you don't have any other spellcastors, and like rolling dice that will probably cost you nothing if you fail except wasted time, then your set.
Personally, I think rangers are a perfectly good class. The main problem is just that they are class that requires the most mastery to do average damage.
Rogues just need to figure out how to not have disadvantage, fighters just need to not use a dagger as their main weapon. Even a warlock with no invocations who spams poison spray will probably do more damage than a ranger who doesn't use Hex, and doesn't spams a single subclass ability which may have a ton of trap options that might even reduce their damage (cough cough Beastmaster).
By the time that ranger figures out how to be a ranger, that warlock just grabs Eldritch Blast & Hex and keeps up probably even better than the ranger. Out of combat, the ranger's abilities finally get to shine in the least used pillar exploration. Most DMs don't use exploration as it's mostly just a bunch of dice rolls, many of which are skipped via ranger, and the others can be easily skipped with a couple spells. Granted, if you don't have any other spellcastors, and like rolling dice that will probably cost you nothing if you fail except wasted time, then your set.
I like what you’re saying about “mastery” and “most DMs don’t use exploration”. Couldn’t agree more. I disagree that beast masters do less damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Actually a spell with a range of “self” does target the caster and qualifies for the 15th level ability share spells.
This I can agree with. The cone really hasn’t got anything to do with the range. The spell targets the caster and the effect is something that happens in a cone emanating from the caster. That effect can’t be placed away from the caster, so it has no range.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Since we are temporarily theory crafting high-level play strategies, and assuming you are using the multi class optional rules, here’s a fun little exercise!
Go to the section on DND Beyond that lists all the spells. Filter them to only show cantrips and 1st level spells. Then organize them by range and look for “self” and “touch”.
Use your next level up to multiclass into a full spellcaster (druid and cleric are particularly great for a ranger) and have some fun blasting the battlefield alongside your beast companion! Cantrips are particularly good at this point as we all know they scale by overall level and not class level.
If you want to call it CR 5 I'm not going to debate you but an elemental is stronger than the pet. What CR we call it isn't all that useful. That's not the important piece of what we're debating. What is useful is how will it fair in a fight geared for level 20 characters. My argument is that the beast master's pet is going to get knocked out easily. At least by this point it can survive a breath attack from a dragon because of Absorb Elements.
Specifically, Crawford said that spells that target self, target the caster. I wasn't debating that. The range of the spell we're talking about is a cone originating on self. Not self. Read your quote again. "A range of self means the caster is the target, as in shield, or the point of origin, as in thunderwave (PH, 202)." In the case of Conjure Barrage, the Range is Self (Cone 60ft) meaning the target is creatures in a 60 ft cone originating from the caster. It does NOT mean that the casting ranger is the target. Crawford didn't say anything about a cone originating on self being the same as the ranger being the target of a spell like Conjure Barrage specifically for the purposes of working with the Beast Master feature. I'd need a ruling that specific for me to agree this works. I agree that spells that target self work, like shield, or absorb elements. I also agree that spells that target the ranger, like Cure Wounds or Stone Skin work. But a spell like Conjure Barrage should not work according to any rules or rulings on rules I've seen. If you or your DM want to rule it that way on your table then that's great for you. That's not RAW or RAI though.
I agree and actually think it's a potentially fun feature when you can use it to triangulate a way to find something. If a GM gave me a puzzle to find a tomb in a large area and I was able to triangulate it's location using this over a course of a few in game hours, I would find that to be a really fun and memorable start to an adventure. It costs some spell slots though and is generally a pretty situational thing.
Thanks for the replies. I've enjoyed the debate.
"A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect." (PHB p. 204) The target of Conjure Barrage is not 'creatures in a 60 ft cone originating from the caster'. It's just not. Nothing in the rules says they are. In fact, you could cast Conjure Barrage to cover an area where you can't see anyone, and if there is an invisible creature in it that creature will be affected.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So a spell with a range of self targets the caster. And beginning at 15th level, when you cast a spell targeting yourself, you can also affect your beast companion with the spell if the beast is within 30 feet of you. The target of the spell is the caster, and a cone originates from them. And if their beast companion is within 30 feet, because they targeted themself with a spell, the beast companion is also affected and can produce another cone.
I find it weird how you are attempting to argue against Conjure Barrage but not Thunderwave, which is specifically given as an example. Does the latter now not target the caster, even though JC said it did? Either JC is right or wrong, but he can't be both.
It doesn't work with either of those two spells. I'm not sure how I misrepresented my position. Let's see if I can break the quote from Crawford down as simply as possible.
"A range of self means the caster is the target, as in shield, or the point of origin, as in thunderwave (PH, 202)." Or is exclusive which means only one of these things is true.
Only one of the following can be true when looking at a spell with the range of self:
OR
Now which one of these do you think Conjure Barrage [range: self(60ft cone)] fits in? To me it looks like the second option. The caster is the point of origin for Conjure Barrage, not the target.
Hopefully this was clear enough.
Okay, so let's look at spells with a point of origin. Say, Conjure Volley as it's another ranger spell. The spellcaster chooses a point within range. Now, I can't think of anyone who's going to argue that choosing a point is fundamentally different from targeting a point, but I digress. You choose a point and the spell affects an area around that point. Now, are we seriously trying to argue that casting a spell with a point of origin being the spellcaster isn't also choosing...targeting the spellcaster?
###
Even if we did and decided to drop Conjure Barrage, the beast master doesn't really need the extra damage. It's more than competitive on that front, and despite their low hit points, the beast companion's AC is formidable. And there is still a menagerie of other spells that can still be shared. You can't overlap areas of Pass without Trace for +20, but you can cover twice the area. Both the ranger and beast master can each restrain a target with Ensnaring Strike; using the ranger's Spell Save DC to do it. If they're both caught in the AoE of a suitable effect, Absorb Elements can protect them both and give them a potential damage buff.
Cure Wounds, Freedom of Movement, Guardian of Nature, Nondetection, Protection from Energy, Protection from Poison, and Stoneskin are perfectly viable, as well. I'm probably even missing some, and this doesn't include whatever else the ranger might be getting in Tasha's.
I am really confused I think I understand what you're saying. You're saying that a spell like Fireball targeting a point and emanating from that point to an area is the same as a spell like conjure volley targeting the caster and emanating out from the caster. I have two issues with this interpretation. First, Fireball explicitly says it targets a point you choose whereas the spell conjure volley does not. Additionally, fireball effects the point of origin while conjure barrage does not.
Let's move on from a rules discussion and use a modicum of sense. If you fire a bunch of arrows at a series of enemies, are you the target? That's what you're arguing. I realize we're dealing with magic in a fictitious game but it still seems ludicrous to suggest that you're the target of this spell. I think we can just look at the definition of the word target in any dictionary and see what the target of this spell is.
I agree about the damage. I think ranger damage is good and I've said as much. The pet's AC is fine but it's nothing special. At level 3 a wolf has an AC of 16 which isn't bad. Comparable to a rogue or fighter without a shield. At 20 it's 19 which still isn't great but there is nothing saying you cannot give it barding.
There are plenty of good spells that work well with Shared Spells. Those are some good ones you've listed! You could always take 5 levels in druid to augment that even more. Might be a fun build.
But you’re not firing arrows, let alone at anyone. You’re causing a bunch of arrows to fly through an area, after which they disappear. Anyone in the area has to make a saving throw vs getting hurt by them. So, you don’t fire them so much as making them appear, and how they might harm those enemies doesn’t use a mechanic similar to how attacks work in the game (that would involve ACs instead of saves). Those arrows aren’t targeting anything, they just fly and anything that might be in the way is liable to get hit.
In fact, you can cast the spell so the cone covers a completely empty area. How would you consider what’s in The area the target if there’s nothing in there that could even function as a target?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting#CastingaSpell
Casting a Spell
When a character casts any spell, the same basic rules are followed, regardless of the character's class or the spell's effects.
Each spell description begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.
Range
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range. For a spell like magic missile, the target is a creature. For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts.
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.
Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise.
Targets
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 an area of effect (described below).
Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise.
A Clear Path to the Target
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover. If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.
Targeting Yourself
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.
If this spell doesn't hit anything then there was no target. It just fired off into an area similar to how if you fired a gun into an area where there was nothing.
Let's apply Occam's razor. Nowhere in the rules does it explicitly say this works. Nowhere have we found a quote from Crawford or any other authority that says it works. Spells and abilities say exactly what they do and nothing more. Conjure barrage does not explicitly say it targets the caster so it doesn't. Moreover, it just seems bizarre to argue it targets the caster when the only effect it has on the caster is to cause them to be the point of origin. Target is defined as "a person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack" (Yes, I googled define target). The simplist solution is that the caster is not the the target of conjure barrage and this does not work with the share spells feature.
I almost agreed with you when it was claimed that Crawford had already stated this worked. But I decided to read the link before posting and realized the quote was actually confirming my exact position. If you can provide any rules in a book that explicitly says this works, or any authority that says it does, I'll agree with you. Short of that, I think we've gone in enough circles on this topic and it's time to move on.
Range: Self explicitly says it targets the caster. That's exactly what Range: Self means. If you're going to tell me it doesn't when the rules say it does, I'm not sure we can have a discussion based on logic anymore.
It doesn't seem bizarre to me that the only effect on the caster is making him the point of origin, since that's exactly what the area of effect spell rules say it does.
Please don't use dictionary definitions when the rules are written down in the rulebook, not in any dictionary. It's 100% all in the PHB.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I do think there is a lot of language and nuance to navigate with regards to this discussion. Whether this is the proper place for it, or whether it deserves its own thread, I'm not sure. But we can poke around a little.
Early I mentioned Conjure Volley, which does not designate those caught within the area of effect as targets. It uses the fairly neutral, if specific, creature. Contrast this with Fireball, which does call those within the area of effect targets. I'm not 100% sure this is important from a mechanical perspective, but I don't think it was an accident. Contrast these two with three other spells which originate from the spellcaster, using themself as a point of origin: Burning Hands, Cone of Cold, and Thunderwave. Each one has a range of Self (X ft cone), and each one uses the term "creature" and not "target".
So, assuming the language matters and those in the area of effect are not targets, is the spellcaster the target? Or does the spell not have a target? Can a spell even be cast without a target?
I am not having any issues with logic and I really can't spell out this out logically any clearer than I already have. I'll try to recap as clearly as I can.
Range of self targets the caster. I'm not questioning this. Range of Self when followed by an area alternatively means the caster is the point of origin. Both the PHB and Crawford distinguish this scenario as different than Range:Self.
Note that nowhere does it say this scenario has the caster as a target.
One more time, Crawford is saying a range of self means one of two things. In the case of shield, he is saying the caster is the target. In the case of Thunderwave, he is saying the caster is the point of origin for the spell. If he said "A range of self means the caster is the target, as in shield, and can additionally mean the point of origin, as in thunderwave," then you'd be correct. But he didn't say that. He specifically differentiated the two. Range: Self and Range: Self(60ft cone) are different things. According to the person that literally wrote the rules, a range of self means the caster is the target or the caster is the point of origin. In the case of Thunderwave, Conjure Barrage, and any other spell with the range described as self(x ft line, cone, square, or whatever else), the self means the caster is the point of origin.
I'm done arguing this. I cannot possibly be more clear. Maybe that's on me. We've gone around and around making the same points repeatedly. Let's move on. If you want to argue this any further, hop on twitter and @JeremyECrawford to ask him straight up if Conjure Barrage works with the Share Spells feature of the Beast Master. If he responds, then the debate can be resolved one way or the other.
I think the target would be the area of effect if anything.
5e tends to be as simple as possible. I think if this were the way you're suggesting, it would be explicitly spelled out somewhere.
Does this help?
It’s from the sorcerer’s twin spell meta magic feature and the blurb from the sage advice compendium about it.
Twinned Spell
When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn’t have a range of self, you can spend a number of sorcery points equal to the spell’s level to target a second creature in range with the same spell (1 sorcery point if the spell is a cantrip).
To be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level. For example, magic missile and scorching ray aren’t eligible, but ray of frost and chromatic orb are.
Can my sorcerer use Twinned Spell to affect a particular spell? You can use Twinned Spell on a spell that…
If you know this rule yet are still unsure whether a particular spell qualifies for Twinned Spell, consult with your DM, who has the final say. If the two of you are curious about our design intent, here is the list of things that disqualify a spell for us:
Let me clarify the argument that is being by 01011000Lehrer.
The argument against can be summarized in "A range of self means the caster is the target, as in shield, or the point of origin, as in thunderwave", and that due to the wording of "you are target or you are not target as in thunderwave", that implies spells like Thunderwave makes you not the target.
Alt. if you hate RAI for some reason, they got you covered too.
"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."
Let me rephrase that, spells where the target is you, have a range of self. Other spells that have a range of self are those where you are the origin.
If spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate had you has a target, then the whole "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" would of just been deleted as it would of fell under the first sentence.Edit: Just in case, I'll make that clearer.
The general rule is that all spells with a range of self target you.
However, there is a specific rule that states that spells where you are the origin are also marked as self. The specific rule should override the general rule, and if that wasn't the case, there would be no need of a specific rule it would be covered by the general rule.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Personally, I think rangers are a perfectly good class. The main problem is just that they are class that requires the most mastery to do average damage.
Rogues just need to figure out how to not have disadvantage, fighters just need to not use a dagger as their main weapon. Even a warlock with no invocations who spams poison spray without Hex, will probably do more damage than a ranger who doesn't use very specific spells, doesn't spams a single subclass ability which may have a ton of trap options that might even reduce their damage (cough cough Beastmaster).
By the time that ranger figures out how to be a ranger, that warlock just grabs Eldritch Blast & Hex and keeps up probably even better than the ranger. At the same time the Warlock has a bunch of cool shiny invocations, 5th level slots, etc. The fighter & paladin do their special nova, and the Wizard shoots a deviating fireball. Then your ranger comes up and goes "I do a extra 1d6 damage", it's effective yes, but not very shiny.
Out of combat, the ranger's abilities finally get to shine in the least used pillar exploration. Most DMs don't use exploration as it's mostly just a bunch of dice rolls, many of which are skipped via ranger, and the others can be easily skipped with a couple spells. Granted, if you don't have any other spellcastors, and like rolling dice that will probably cost you nothing if you fail except wasted time, then your set.
Edited to add more detail.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
I like what you’re saying about “mastery” and “most DMs don’t use exploration”. Couldn’t agree more. I disagree that beast masters do less damage.