I've been thinking about my level 10 metamagic options and when looking at distant found a fair bit of RAW that makes it unusable. RAW only doubles the distance of the range portion of the spell listing it doesn't affect any wording anywhere else in the spell description.
For example mage hand the text says if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you it disappears. Its an issue for the telekinetic feat as well. There's also fly where distant spell turns it from a range of touch to 30 feet but the wording of the text says touch a creature. There are lots of other spells like this and I think it probably isn't RAI, most DMs would probably rule that the range should increase inspite of the RAW not affecting text.
That brings me to the point of the thread though, that of the trigger text on reaction spells, silvery barbs, feather fall and counterspell "* - which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell". These strike me as being a little different mechanically. Being that there are specific triggers that need to be met before you are able to cast these spells and metamagic can't be applied until you cast a spell maybe there is a good argument that distant spell should be allowed on most spells where the text conflicts with the increased range, as that seems like a technicality. But these reaction spells the in game mechanics are different so distant spell shouldn't be house ruled differently than RAW.
I hope that distinction makes sense to people. What do you all think, does it make sense to allow distant spell for many cases but not reaction spells? Follow RAW? Or allow increased range in all cases?
I voted for "in spite of contradicting text on all spells," but I wanted to voice my disagreement with that phrasing. Yeah, mage hand says if it's ever more than 30 feet away from you, it disappears. That is the range. There's no contradiction. The rules of 5e are not written in such a way that it needs to say that 30 feet is the range in this context. The rules are written in plain English. An increase to the range of the spell also increases the "mage hand disappears" limit, because the "mage hand disappears" limit is the range.
This principle also applies to reaction spells. If the reaction trigger is "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you..." then the range is 60 feet, and if you increase the range, you increase that number.
All of which is to say, "Allow increased range in all cases" and "Follow RAW" are the same thing.
I voted for "in spite of contradicting text on all spells," but I wanted to voice my disagreement with that phrasing. Yeah, mage hand says if it's ever more than 30 feet away from you, it disappears. That is the range. There's no contradiction. The rules of 5e are not written in such a way that it needs to say that 30 feet is the range in this context. The rules are written in plain English. An increase to the range of the spell also increases the "mage hand disappears" limit, because the "mage hand disappears" limit is the range.
This principle also applies to reaction spells. If the reaction trigger is "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you..." then the range is 60 feet, and if you increase the range, you increase that number.
All of which is to say, "Allow increased range in all cases" and "Follow RAW" are the same thing.
Thanks for that, I'm looking for different opinions to help try and sort it out.
As for RAW, I don't actually know what it technically is, I've seen it argued both ways. Like you say and that it only narrowly affects the range line of the spell.
My argument about reaction spells is a little different though in that you don't apply a metamagic until you actually cast the spell, and you can't cast the spell before the reaction conditions are met.
In my opinion if you're the type of DM who try to shit on your players by twisting spells and text over the very obvious RAI, you're not worth my time. See ya.
Games are meant to be fun. RAF, and RAI, both make distant spell increase the range of spell in all aspects - including the reaction/spell text. Trying to twist RAW to nerf an already limited feature is not fun and just being a dick.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
There's a difference between a spell range and other distance found in the description that may or may not be equal.
Spell description that refers back to its range specifically say so. (such as Witch Bolt)
That's what I mean about the spell text and RAW. If the text of a spell like mage hand said if the mage hand ever moves past its range it disappears rather than 30 feet that would be more consistent.
That being said, I think RAI would let mage hand go past that if an ability allowed extended range.
Since you seem to have that more strict view of RAW, what's your take on reaction spell specifically. I'm saying that even if you allow distant spell to increase all the references to range in a spell you aren't able to use distant spell until you actually cast a spell and you can't cast a reaction spell until you meet the trigger requirements. (Also, I think I would still allow distant spell to be used, I'm just trying to clarify the RAW of it.)
There's a difference between a spell range and other distance found in the description that may or may not be equal.
Spell description that refers back to its range specifically say so. (such as Witch Bolt)
Please point to where in the rules on Range it says Range refers only to what's in the stat block:
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 (see “Areas of Effect” later in the this chapter).
Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There's a difference between a spell range and other distance found in the description that may or may not be equal.
Spell description that refers back to its range specifically say so. (such as Witch Bolt)
I get why you want that to be true, I really do. It would make interpreting rules easier. But that’s not how 5e is written. You’re quite literally reading the rules incorrectly.
Range refers to what's called out as range in the spell, because all spells have a range field. For example, take Light
Nowhere else in the spell is any other distance referred to as range, only that variable. If we're to read that every numerical value counts as range, then Light has a range of self and 20 feet (potentially 40 feet if we're adding the bright and dim light radiuses together as they are cumulative).
Ultimately range is what's defined in the range field of the spells description, just like how the duration is just what's defined in the duration field.
There's a difference between a spell range and other distance found in the description that may or may not be equal.
Spell description that refers back to its range specifically say so. (such as Witch Bolt)
Please point to where in the rules on Range it says Range refers only to what's in the stat block:
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 (see “Areas of Effect” later in the this chapter).
Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise.
What about the last line there, "Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise." For mage hand the spell description says it disappears after 30 feet.
If we're to read that every numerical value counts as range
Did someone suggest this? I must have missed that post
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
What about the last line there, "Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise." For mage hand the spell description says it disappears after 30 feet.
Which is referring to its range
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There's a difference between a spell range and other distance found in the description that may or may not be equal.
Spell description that refers back to its range specifically say so. (such as Witch Bolt)
Please point to where in the rules on Range it says Range refers only to what's in the stat block:
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 (see “Areas of Effect” later in the this chapter).
Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise.
Although I tend to agree with the increase the range and if the range is referred to in the spell description increase that as well - the rules you specifically cite state the opposite.
"Please point to where in the rules on Range it says Range refers only to what's in the stat block:"
"Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise."
RAW, once you cast mage hand, it disappears after if you move it more than 30' away BECAUSE that is what the spell's description says explicitly. The spell's effects are not limited by its range after casting unless the text says otherwise - that is what the RAW you cited explicitly states. The issue is that the spell text often uses a fixed value that happens to have the same number as the default range for the spell but it is NOT specifically called out as the spell's range (like in Witchbolt). So it is up to the DM to decide whether to allow the spells description to be changed. In many cases, it seems pretty clear that the duplication of the number is intended to be the spell's range but that is RAI and not RAW.
Note: This sentence could also be used to interpret reading the spell description that IF the range number does appear in the spell description then it is INTENDED to be interpreted as the range and should be increased as the range of the spell effect is increased.
Bottom line is that it is ultimately a DM call as to how they want to run it but honestly it is generally not game breaking to allow an increased range. The biggest concern from a DM perspective might be counterspell since allowing an increased range to affect all aspects of the spell allows for a 120' range which is pretty impressive. In this case, the player should ask the DM how they handle the application of distant metamagic to spells in their game.
There's a difference between a spell range and other distance found in the description that may or may not be equal.
Spell description that refers back to its range specifically say so. (such as Witch Bolt)
Please point to where in the rules on Range it says Range refers only to what's in the stat block:
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 (see “Areas of Effect” later in the this chapter).
Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise.
What about the last line there, "Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise." For mage hand the spell description says it disappears after 30 feet.
You have quoted the Range field description. The bolded part eactly point out that if a spell description is limited by it's range, the description will say so (like Witch Bolt do) does.
There's a difference between a spell range and other distance found in the description that may or may not be equal.
Spell description that refers back to its range specifically say so. (such as Witch Bolt)
I get why you want that to be true, I really do. It would make interpreting rules easier. But that’s not how 5e is written. You’re quite literally reading the rules incorrectly.
5E is written like this. Range is a field in a spell, distance appearing in the description is not a spell range even though it may be of equal ditance, or not.
Proof of that is that there's spell that have distance in their description that are not matching range, such as Faithful Hound for exemple and some that are, such as Mage Hand.
DM can certainly decide that game features that modify spell range also modify their description where a distance is given.
Note: This sentence could also be used to interpret reading the spell description that IF the range number does appear in the spell description then it is INTENDED to be interpreted as the range and should be increased as the range of the spell effect is increased.
It isn't really much of a choice which interpretation you use
Tasha's came out over a year ago (Nov. 2020). There's been more than enough time to publish an errata on the Telekinetic feat if WotC felt it needed one. They haven't, so that leaves us with two options:
1) WotC has deliberately put a "rule" in a feat that's designed to do absolutely nothing except spark discussions/debates/arguments like this one 2) Range does not exclusively refer to what's in the stat block, and some spell descriptions also contain references to its range. When something affects that spell's range, it also affects the range indicated in the description (if there is one)
I mean, you can choose to be in camp 1 if you want, but I don't
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
That brings me to the point of the thread though, that of the trigger text on reaction spells, silvery barbs, feather fall and counterspell "* - which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell". These strike me as being a little different mechanically. Being that there are specific triggers that need to be met before you are able to cast these spells and metamagic can't be applied until you cast a spell maybe there is a good argument that distant spell should be allowed on most spells where the text conflicts with the increased range, as that seems like a technicality. But these reaction spells the in game mechanics are different so distant spell shouldn't be house ruled differently than RAW.
In these cases, I would say that the trigger is never actually met. No trigger means no reaction spell. No reaction spell means no distant metamagic.
I've been thinking about my level 10 metamagic options and when looking at distant found a fair bit of RAW that makes it unusable. RAW only doubles the distance of the range portion of the spell listing it doesn't affect any wording anywhere else in the spell description.
For example mage hand the text says if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you it disappears. Its an issue for the telekinetic feat as well. There's also fly where distant spell turns it from a range of touch to 30 feet but the wording of the text says touch a creature. There are lots of other spells like this and I think it probably isn't RAI, most DMs would probably rule that the range should increase inspite of the RAW not affecting text.
That brings me to the point of the thread though, that of the trigger text on reaction spells, silvery barbs, feather fall and counterspell "* - which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell". These strike me as being a little different mechanically. Being that there are specific triggers that need to be met before you are able to cast these spells and metamagic can't be applied until you cast a spell maybe there is a good argument that distant spell should be allowed on most spells where the text conflicts with the increased range, as that seems like a technicality. But these reaction spells the in game mechanics are different so distant spell shouldn't be house ruled differently than RAW.
I hope that distinction makes sense to people. What do you all think, does it make sense to allow distant spell for many cases but not reaction spells? Follow RAW? Or allow increased range in all cases?
I voted for "in spite of contradicting text on all spells," but I wanted to voice my disagreement with that phrasing. Yeah, mage hand says if it's ever more than 30 feet away from you, it disappears. That is the range. There's no contradiction. The rules of 5e are not written in such a way that it needs to say that 30 feet is the range in this context. The rules are written in plain English. An increase to the range of the spell also increases the "mage hand disappears" limit, because the "mage hand disappears" limit is the range.
This principle also applies to reaction spells. If the reaction trigger is "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you..." then the range is 60 feet, and if you increase the range, you increase that number.
All of which is to say, "Allow increased range in all cases" and "Follow RAW" are the same thing.
Thanks for that, I'm looking for different opinions to help try and sort it out.
As for RAW, I don't actually know what it technically is, I've seen it argued both ways. Like you say and that it only narrowly affects the range line of the spell.
My argument about reaction spells is a little different though in that you don't apply a metamagic until you actually cast the spell, and you can't cast the spell before the reaction conditions are met.
In agreement with Saga.
In my opinion if you're the type of DM who try to shit on your players by twisting spells and text over the very obvious RAI, you're not worth my time. See ya.
Games are meant to be fun. RAF, and RAI, both make distant spell increase the range of spell in all aspects - including the reaction/spell text. Trying to twist RAW to nerf an already limited feature is not fun and just being a dick.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
This is the bit I disagree with.
Nothing in RAW says that only the range in the spell's statblock is affected when anything changes the range of the spell.
Although it is important to separate our the RANGE of a spell from it's area of effect.
There's a difference between a spell range and other distance found in the description that may or may not be equal.
Spell description that refers back to its range specifically say so. (such as Witch Bolt)
That's what I mean about the spell text and RAW. If the text of a spell like mage hand said if the mage hand ever moves past its range it disappears rather than 30 feet that would be more consistent.
That being said, I think RAI would let mage hand go past that if an ability allowed extended range.
Since you seem to have that more strict view of RAW, what's your take on reaction spell specifically. I'm saying that even if you allow distant spell to increase all the references to range in a spell you aren't able to use distant spell until you actually cast a spell and you can't cast a reaction spell until you meet the trigger requirements. (Also, I think I would still allow distant spell to be used, I'm just trying to clarify the RAW of it.)
Please point to where in the rules on Range it says Range refers only to what's in the stat block:
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I get why you want that to be true, I really do. It would make interpreting rules easier. But that’s not how 5e is written. You’re quite literally reading the rules incorrectly.
Range refers to what's called out as range in the spell, because all spells have a range field. For example, take Light
Nowhere else in the spell is any other distance referred to as range, only that variable. If we're to read that every numerical value counts as range, then Light has a range of self and 20 feet (potentially 40 feet if we're adding the bright and dim light radiuses together as they are cumulative).
Ultimately range is what's defined in the range field of the spells description, just like how the duration is just what's defined in the duration field.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
What about the last line there, "Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise." For mage hand the spell description says it disappears after 30 feet.
Did someone suggest this? I must have missed that post
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Which is referring to its range
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Although I tend to agree with the increase the range and if the range is referred to in the spell description increase that as well - the rules you specifically cite state the opposite.
"Please point to where in the rules on Range it says Range refers only to what's in the stat block:"
"Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise."
RAW, once you cast mage hand, it disappears after if you move it more than 30' away BECAUSE that is what the spell's description says explicitly. The spell's effects are not limited by its range after casting unless the text says otherwise - that is what the RAW you cited explicitly states. The issue is that the spell text often uses a fixed value that happens to have the same number as the default range for the spell but it is NOT specifically called out as the spell's range (like in Witchbolt). So it is up to the DM to decide whether to allow the spells description to be changed. In many cases, it seems pretty clear that the duplication of the number is intended to be the spell's range but that is RAI and not RAW.
Note: This sentence could also be used to interpret reading the spell description that IF the range number does appear in the spell description then it is INTENDED to be interpreted as the range and should be increased as the range of the spell effect is increased.
Bottom line is that it is ultimately a DM call as to how they want to run it but honestly it is generally not game breaking to allow an increased range. The biggest concern from a DM perspective might be counterspell since allowing an increased range to affect all aspects of the spell allows for a 120' range which is pretty impressive. In this case, the player should ask the DM how they handle the application of distant metamagic to spells in their game.
You have quoted the Range field description. The bolded part eactly point out that if a spell description is limited by it's range, the description will say so (like Witch Bolt do) does.
5E is written like this. Range is a field in a spell, distance appearing in the description is not a spell range even though it may be of equal ditance, or not.
Proof of that is that there's spell that have distance in their description that are not matching range, such as Faithful Hound for exemple and some that are, such as Mage Hand.
DM can certainly decide that game features that modify spell range also modify their description where a distance is given.
It isn't really much of a choice which interpretation you use
Tasha's came out over a year ago (Nov. 2020). There's been more than enough time to publish an errata on the Telekinetic feat if WotC felt it needed one. They haven't, so that leaves us with two options:
1) WotC has deliberately put a "rule" in a feat that's designed to do absolutely nothing except spark discussions/debates/arguments like this one
2) Range does not exclusively refer to what's in the stat block, and some spell descriptions also contain references to its range. When something affects that spell's range, it also affects the range indicated in the description (if there is one)
I mean, you can choose to be in camp 1 if you want, but I don't
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There was a very long discussion about the specific wording in Mage Hand and the Telekinetic feat not too long ago.
Maybe we can this thread to more general cases.
In these cases, I would say that the trigger is never actually met. No trigger means no reaction spell. No reaction spell means no distant metamagic.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Are you referring to this thread i believe ?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/120465-telekinetic-feat-losing-mage-hand