First, fireball isn't worded that way. It causes all creatures (indiscriminately) within the area to make a saving throw. But then it says that a target takes damage. These two things are not linked
They are linked, it doesn't just say that it takes damage out of nowhere, it says creatures make saving throw, and take damage on a failed save or successful one. The target takes damage directly as an result of that saving throw outcome.
"Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."
AOE spells cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once. Fireball says each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. The following mention of a target taking damage a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one is in reference to the previous sentence telling who makes a saving throw, which is creature in the area, not the point of origin you choose.
Area of Effect: Spells such as burning hands and cone of cold cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.
Yes, but "affect multiple creatures at once" is different than "targeting multiple creatures at once". Now if the AOE rule said that it targets every creature within the area, you would have a point. Otherwise you could say that you weren't targeting your allies when you cast Fireball, so they take no damage (Evocation Wizards notwithstanding).
The point of distinction to make is that Fireball target a point you choose, and being an area of effect, it cover an area, allowing it to affect multiple creatures at once. The word "target" in it is referring to creatures making saving throw specifically when put in context.
It just shouldn't have been written that way. All they had to do was say:
"Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw and takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."
Thereby specifying exactly how creatures are affected by the AOE. The term "targeting" insinuates intentionally selecting something specific. An area of effect, by definition, does not do this. It's just an error that was made by whichever author actually wrote the spell. This crops up in a small handful of spells throughout the many hundreds of spells that exist in the game and it's simply a matter of sloppy writing, nothing more.
AOE spells cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once. Fireball says each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. The following mention of a target taking damage a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one is in reference to the previous sentence telling who makes a saving throw, which is creature in the area, not the point of origin you choose.
Area of Effect: Spells such as burning hands and cone of cold cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.
Yes, but "affect multiple creatures at once" is different than "targeting multiple creatures at once". Now if the AOE rule said that it targets every creature within the area, you would have a point. Otherwise you could say that you weren't targeting your allies when you cast Fireball, so they take no damage (Evocation Wizards notwithstanding).
The spell itself tells you how it targets creatures or objects in the area.
You're looking for a universal rule that doesn't exist specifically because not all spells were intended to work the same way as one another. Some hit everything, some hit all creatures, some hit allies, some hit enemies, or a selectable number if targets. They're all different. Intentionally so.
When in doubt read the spell description. It has the missing info you need about how things in the area are targetted.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It just shouldn't have been written that way. All they had to do was say:
"Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw and takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."
Thereby specifying exactly how creatures are affected by the AOE. The term "targeting" insinuates intentionally selecting something specific. An area of effect, by definition, does not do this. It's just an error that was made by whichever author actually wrote the spell. This crops up in a small handful of spells throughout the many hundreds of spells that exist in the game and it's simply a matter of sloppy writing, nothing more.
There is literally nothing wrong with the wording of the fireball spell. The creatures affected by your spell ARE targets of that spell's effect.
Everyone knows precisely how it works and there is no ambiguity there even a little.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The lucky feat. If you have disadvantage (say, from being blindfolded) you’re actually MORE likely to hit when using lucky than if you were attacking normally, because you pick which of the dice to use. Same goes for rerolling advantage attacks made by others - they’re LESS likely to hit despite their advantage because of the wording of the feat.
You might have a point with using it yourself, but I don't see how others rolling with advantage would make them less likely to hit you. The feat says:
Roll a d20, and then choose whether the attack uses the attacker's roll or yours.
If the attacker rolled with advantage, the attacker's roll would be the higher of two rolls. It definitely doesn't say that you can choose from any d20s that the attacker rolled, especially since most players wouldn't have a clue what's being rolled when a monster is rolling with advantage.
Thanks :/. Whoops. Should have really double-checked that before I posted tbh.
It just shouldn't have been written that way. All they had to do was say:
"Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw and takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."
Thereby specifying exactly how creatures are affected by the AOE. The term "targeting" insinuates intentionally selecting something specific. An area of effect, by definition, does not do this. It's just an error that was made by whichever author actually wrote the spell. This crops up in a small handful of spells throughout the many hundreds of spells that exist in the game and it's simply a matter of sloppy writing, nothing more.
There is literally nothing wrong with the wording of the fireball spell. The creatures affected by your spell ARE targets of that spell's effect.
There's a lot of people out there, not just Magic players (though it's responsible, directly or indirectly, for most of them), who are going to assume that "target" is a specific term of art when they see it. AFAIK, D&D doesn't define it anywhere, and this can cause issues (more with the Twinned Spell metamagic than here).
(The definition they seem to use is that anything affected by a spell is a target, but I'd not bet money that they're fully consistent.)
Everyone knows precisely how it works and there is no ambiguity there even a little.
Everyone knows precisely how it works and there is no ambiguity there even a little.
This is 100% true, though.
It's actually 50% true. Everyone indeed knows precisely how it works in terms of RAI and we all obviously run it that way. However, there is ambiguity as mentioned previously. Ambiguous is actually a bit generous. Really, it's unambiguous in the other direction in terms of RAW -- the spell simply does not function as intended.
The creatures affected by your spell ARE targets of that spell's effect.
This is false for two reasons where were already given above. From post #19:
"First, fireball isn't worded that way. It causes all creatures (indiscriminately) within the area to make a saving throw. But then it says that a target takes damage. These two things are not linked -- it's just not a well worded spell.
Secondly, this is just not how AOE spells work. An AOE spell creates an area within which an effect occurs indiscriminately. There are other spells which do target creatures within a certain range, but those are not AOE spells, those are targeting spells. As written, fireball is broken and should have received errata nearly 10 years ago."
AFAIK, D&D doesn't define ["target"] anywhere, and this can cause issues
Targeting as related to spells is discussed in the PHB in Chapter 10: Spellcasting --> Casting a Spell --> Targets:
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).
. . .
A Clear Path to the Target
To target something, you must have a clear path to it
In contrast, there are some separate rules which govern Areas of Effect:
Areas of Effect
Spells such as burning hands and cone of cold cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.
. . .
typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere. Every area of effect has a point of origin
. . .
A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin.
These are two separate concepts and they are mutually exclusive.
A Fireball target a point of origin for an area of effect and affect creatures in it, which must make a saving throw, a target taking 8d6 damage on a failed save is not the point of origin, but the creature it reference in context.
It's actually 50% true. Everyone indeed knows precisely how it works in terms of RAI and we all obviously run it that way. However, there is ambiguity as mentioned previously. Ambiguous is actually a bit generous. Really, it's unambiguous in the other direction in terms of RAW -- the spell simply does not function as intended.
As I mentioned initially, this logic is flawed because it conflates two separate things:
The target of the spell, which is used to place and adjudicate the spell effect. It is located in the properties of the spell.
A target of the effect, which is a creature or object affected by the spell effect. It is located in the text of the spell.
The text of fireball simply says target, which means it relies on context clues to determine which "target" is being referenced. Since it is obviously not the target of the spell, and the preceding sentence mentions the creatures within the range of the spell effect, the conclusion is undeniably obvious: the word "target" here refers to a creature affected by the spell.
To say that the spell doesn't function RAW is just silly.
We play with a lot of Prismatic Walls as two of us can make them.
1) Any game where it happens is fighting monsters with so much resistances and immunities that they routinely enter and leave the area, taking some damage but not dying.
2) You can dim door it (Indigo level stops casting through it,not travel through it)
3) The spell itself is a very good 9th but not the best (Foresight.)
4) People DO go through the 7 spells to defeat it outside of combat. Damn thing last 10 minutes and it is blocking the way out, you start casting. Takes a couple of rounds, but worth it.
Cheapest way is to use a cantrip + Dragon's breath (or cast chromatic orb 2-3 times) to get rid of each of cold (and later fire) layers. Have someone ready with a gust of wind against the 2nd layer. Eldritch Blast or Disintegrate if no warlock against the third layer,. Green four is expensive, just go with readied Passwall, Blue is the fire one. Then cast a readied Daylight for 6, and end Violet last with a readied Dispel Magic.
Uses: Cantrip: three different ones multiple times, three 2nd level spells, two 3rd level plus a fifth level spell. (plus one 6th without the warlock)
Typically this takes about 7 rounds - although some layers take 2 rounds to go through, the readied actions make up for this. If you have huge party (say five or six PCs each some minions) you could theoretically go through it in just one round, but that is unlikely.
That goodberry is considered a “healing spell” and should therefore benefit from the Life cleric’s Disciple of Life feature. Ahem, no. The spell creates berries, it doesn’t heal anyone. The berries might heal, but the spell itself does not and should therefore be ineligible for Disciple of Life.
It kinda makes sense; you can't see them clearly enough to aim well, but it's offset by them not seeing clearly enough to readily block or evade.
Edit: Also, in general it keeps the "both parties are heavily obscured" environmental condition from just making combat sessions drag on longer because everyone is missing more.
That goodberry is considered a “healing spell” and should therefore benefit from the Life cleric’s Disciple of Life feature. Ahem, no. The spell creates berries, it doesn’t heal anyone. The berries might heal, but the spell itself does not and should therefore be ineligible for Disciple of Life.
While I would agree with you not the rules on this pretty much every DM I know goes with the rule as is so either all my DMs are insane or this doesn't fit the list.
The lucky feat. If you have disadvantage (say, from being blindfolded) you’re actually MORE likely to hit when using lucky than if you were attacking normally, because you pick which of the dice to use. Same goes for rerolling advantage attacks made by others - they’re LESS likely to hit despite their advantage because of the wording of the feat.
The dumbest ruling is that you attack normally if you and your target are inside a fog cloud spell.
ie: you gain disadvantage because you're blind and advantage because your target is blind. (And they cancel out.)
Dumbest thing in RAW. Period. (And I'll never, ever use it.)
I agree in general. However, the rule is there for simplicity and to keep combat moving along.
I've considered just giving everyone disadvantage if they can't see each other since I tend to think not seeing your target has a bigger impact on interactions than them not being able to see you.
However, this then gets into how do you resolve all sorts of other types of Advantage and Disadvantage. Which cases are more powerful? Which Advantages would cancel Disadvantages and which wouldn't? Finally, does having everyone roll at Disadvantage when they can't see each other do anything more than just slow down the combat and switch the balance in the combat to the creatures with the lower to hit number?
It also leaves out the question of hearing and other senses. Does someone clanking around in armor make enough noise to partially compensate for not being able to see them? So, when combined with the fact that they can't see your attack coming, can't block with their shield or dodge effectively, the chances of doing some sort of damage more or less cancel out making a straight roll make sense?
Perhaps when you can't see them, the chances of hitting them go down but the chances of hitting in such a way as to do damage go up?
As long as the game system uses Advantage and Disadvantage to keep things reasonably simple, then it really won't be a "simulation" and having Advantage and Disadvantage cancel when creatures can't see each other in a fight is about as good a solution as any (especially considering that the characters are trained to fight and it is a high fantasy game in the first place ... comparisons to "reality" don't necessarily make a lot of sense).
Everyone knows precisely how it works and there is no ambiguity there even a little.
This is 100% true, though.
It's actually 50% true. Everyone indeed knows precisely how it works in terms of RAI and we all obviously run it that way. However, there is ambiguity as mentioned previously. Ambiguous is actually a bit generous. Really, it's unambiguous in the other direction in terms of RAW -- the spell simply does not function as intended.
The creatures affected by your spell ARE targets of that spell's effect.
This is false for two reasons where were already given above. From post #19:
"First, fireball isn't worded that way. It causes all creatures (indiscriminately) within the area to make a saving throw. But then it says that a target takes damage. These two things are not linked -- it's just not a well worded spell.
Secondly, this is just not how AOE spells work. An AOE spell creates an area within which an effect occurs indiscriminately. There are other spells which do target creatures within a certain range, but those are not AOE spells, those are targeting spells. As written, fireball is broken and should have received errata nearly 10 years ago."
AFAIK, D&D doesn't define ["target"] anywhere, and this can cause issues
Targeting as related to spells is discussed in the PHB in Chapter 10: Spellcasting --> Casting a Spell --> Targets:
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).
. . .
A Clear Path to the Target
To target something, you must have a clear path to it
In contrast, there are some separate rules which govern Areas of Effect:
Areas of Effect
Spells such as burning hands and cone of cold cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.
. . .
typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere. Every area of effect has a point of origin
. . .
A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin.
These are two separate concepts and they are mutually exclusive.
This isn't debate-time. People are taking time to help explain it to you. Go watch Jeremy Crawford explain exactly how aoes and range and targetting works he's explained this exact thing in interviews.
And, again, aoe spells do not indiscriminately affect everything in their area. 100% false. And it is really obvious too if you go read any aoe spell. Because the spell description TELLS you what in the area the spell effect gets applies to. It has to tell you because not all aoe spells affect the same targets in their area.
They all affect the area and the creatures or objects in that area differently. They're not at all indiscriminate. Some CAN be indiscriminate, but only if it says as much in the spell description. That is a property of the specific spell, not AOEs as a whole.
Edit: And to really drive home how far off base this idea you have is, if you really did apply it to a game it would let sorcerers twin spell fireball. Because they could "target" one creature with the aoe placement bead. Ain't no one ever going to buy into this idea. The reason you can't do that is because... as has been explained... the spell effect "targets" all creatures in the area.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It's actually 50% true. Everyone indeed knows precisely how it works in terms of RAI and we all obviously run it that way. However, there is ambiguity as mentioned previously. Ambiguous is actually a bit generous. Really, it's unambiguous in the other direction in terms of RAW -- the spell simply does not function as intended.
As I mentioned initially, this logic is flawed because it conflates two separate things:
The target of the spell, which is used to place and adjudicate the spell effect. It is located in the properties of the spell.
A target of the effect, which is a creature or object affected by the spell effect. It is located in the text of the spell.
This was wrong both times that you've said it. That's not how AOE spells work and that's not what targeting means. Nothing is being conflated. There is targeting and there is area of effect. These are two separate concepts and they are mutually exclusive.
This isn't debate-time. People are taking time to help explain it to you. Go watch Jeremy Crawford explain exactly how aoes and range and targetting works he's explained this exact thing in interviews.
And, again, aoe spells do not indiscriminately affect everything in their area. 100% false. And it is really obvious too if you go read any aoe spell. Because the spell description TELLS you what in the area the spell effect gets applies to. It has to tell you because not all aoe spells affect the same targets in their area.
They all affect the area and the creatures or objects in that area differently. They're not at all indiscriminate. Some CAN be indiscriminate, but only if it says as much in the spell description. That is a property of the specific spell, not AOEs as a whole.
Nope. All of this is incorrect.
In fact, areas of effect are indiscriminate -- that's 100% true. They are geometrically defined areas that are filled by the spell effect. Nothing is targeted -- the area (volume) of space is simply filled and that spell effect has a defined affect on anything that it interacts with. This is all explicitly detailed in the rules.
As for your examples, the shatter spell IS an AOE spell. It very explicitly does NOT target anything. Instead, "Each creature in a 10-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Constitution saving throw. A creature takes 3d8 thunder damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one." Nothing was targeted. Any and all creatures within the AOE are indiscriminately affected in the way that is defined by the spell.
Wither and Bloom works the same way. Nothing is targeted. This one does have an additional quirk, however, because the spellcaster can designate which creatures are eligible to be affected by the AOE which fills the space. For example, normal targeting rules don't apply -- you don't need to have a clear path to each designated creature, etc.
Grease ALSO doesn't target any creatures (sort of a strange selection of examples that you used I would say). Once again, the AOE created by this spell affects creatures indiscriminately whenever a creature interacts with that space.
It sort of looks like you were losing the thread of what was being debated here. We were discussing targeting.
Edit: And to really drive home how far off base this idea you have is, if you really did apply it to a game it would let sorcerers twin spell fireball. Because they could "target" one creature with the aoe placement bead. Ain't no one ever going to buy into this idea. The reason you can't do that is because... as has been explained... the spell effect "targets" all creatures in the area.
Incorrect.
The sorcerer's ability to twin a spell only works on a spell which targets exactly one creature. The fireball spell targets zero creatures. It is an AOE spell -- it targets a point in space. The fireball spell cannot be twinned.
Furthermore, not only does the fireball spell not say anything about targeting creatures in the area, but also that's not how AOE spells work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They are linked, it doesn't just say that it takes damage out of nowhere, it says creatures make saving throw, and take damage on a failed save or successful one. The target takes damage directly as an result of that saving throw outcome.
"Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."
The point of distinction to make is that Fireball target a point you choose, and being an area of effect, it cover an area, allowing it to affect multiple creatures at once. The word "target" in it is referring to creatures making saving throw specifically when put in context.
It just shouldn't have been written that way. All they had to do was say:
"Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw and takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."
Thereby specifying exactly how creatures are affected by the AOE. The term "targeting" insinuates intentionally selecting something specific. An area of effect, by definition, does not do this. It's just an error that was made by whichever author actually wrote the spell. This crops up in a small handful of spells throughout the many hundreds of spells that exist in the game and it's simply a matter of sloppy writing, nothing more.
The spell itself tells you how it targets creatures or objects in the area.
You're looking for a universal rule that doesn't exist specifically because not all spells were intended to work the same way as one another. Some hit everything, some hit all creatures, some hit allies, some hit enemies, or a selectable number if targets. They're all different. Intentionally so.
When in doubt read the spell description. It has the missing info you need about how things in the area are targetted.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
There is literally nothing wrong with the wording of the fireball spell. The creatures affected by your spell ARE targets of that spell's effect.
Everyone knows precisely how it works and there is no ambiguity there even a little.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Thanks :/. Whoops. Should have really double-checked that before I posted tbh.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
There's a lot of people out there, not just Magic players (though it's responsible, directly or indirectly, for most of them), who are going to assume that "target" is a specific term of art when they see it. AFAIK, D&D doesn't define it anywhere, and this can cause issues (more with the Twinned Spell metamagic than here).
(The definition they seem to use is that anything affected by a spell is a target, but I'd not bet money that they're fully consistent.)
This is 100% true, though.
It's actually 50% true. Everyone indeed knows precisely how it works in terms of RAI and we all obviously run it that way. However, there is ambiguity as mentioned previously. Ambiguous is actually a bit generous. Really, it's unambiguous in the other direction in terms of RAW -- the spell simply does not function as intended.
This is false for two reasons where were already given above. From post #19:
"First, fireball isn't worded that way. It causes all creatures (indiscriminately) within the area to make a saving throw. But then it says that a target takes damage. These two things are not linked -- it's just not a well worded spell.
Secondly, this is just not how AOE spells work. An AOE spell creates an area within which an effect occurs indiscriminately. There are other spells which do target creatures within a certain range, but those are not AOE spells, those are targeting spells. As written, fireball is broken and should have received errata nearly 10 years ago."
Targeting as related to spells is discussed in the PHB in Chapter 10: Spellcasting --> Casting a Spell --> Targets:
In contrast, there are some separate rules which govern Areas of Effect:
These are two separate concepts and they are mutually exclusive.
A Fireball target a point of origin for an area of effect and affect creatures in it, which must make a saving throw, a target taking 8d6 damage on a failed save is not the point of origin, but the creature it reference in context.
As I mentioned initially, this logic is flawed because it conflates two separate things:
The text of fireball simply says target, which means it relies on context clues to determine which "target" is being referenced. Since it is obviously not the target of the spell, and the preceding sentence mentions the creatures within the range of the spell effect, the conclusion is undeniably obvious: the word "target" here refers to a creature affected by the spell.
To say that the spell doesn't function RAW is just silly.
We play with a lot of Prismatic Walls as two of us can make them.
1) Any game where it happens is fighting monsters with so much resistances and immunities that they routinely enter and leave the area, taking some damage but not dying.
2) You can dim door it (Indigo level stops casting through it,not travel through it)
3) The spell itself is a very good 9th but not the best (Foresight.)
4) People DO go through the 7 spells to defeat it outside of combat. Damn thing last 10 minutes and it is blocking the way out, you start casting. Takes a couple of rounds, but worth it.
Cheapest way is to use a cantrip + Dragon's breath (or cast chromatic orb 2-3 times) to get rid of each of cold (and later fire) layers. Have someone ready with a gust of wind against the 2nd layer. Eldritch Blast or Disintegrate if no warlock against the third layer,. Green four is expensive, just go with readied Passwall, Blue is the fire one. Then cast a readied Daylight for 6, and end Violet last with a readied Dispel Magic.
Uses: Cantrip: three different ones multiple times, three 2nd level spells, two 3rd level plus a fifth level spell. (plus one 6th without the warlock)
Typically this takes about 7 rounds - although some layers take 2 rounds to go through, the readied actions make up for this. If you have huge party (say five or six PCs each some minions) you could theoretically go through it in just one round, but that is unlikely.
That goodberry is considered a “healing spell” and should therefore benefit from the Life cleric’s Disciple of Life feature. Ahem, no. The spell creates berries, it doesn’t heal anyone. The berries might heal, but the spell itself does not and should therefore be ineligible for Disciple of Life.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The dumbest ruling is that you attack normally if you and your target are inside a fog cloud spell.
ie: you gain disadvantage because you're blind and advantage because your target is blind. (And they cancel out.)
Dumbest thing in RAW. Period. (And I'll never, ever use it.)
It kinda makes sense; you can't see them clearly enough to aim well, but it's offset by them not seeing clearly enough to readily block or evade.
Edit: Also, in general it keeps the "both parties are heavily obscured" environmental condition from just making combat sessions drag on longer because everyone is missing more.
While I would agree with you not the rules on this pretty much every DM I know goes with the rule as is so either all my DMs are insane or this doesn't fit the list.
Attacks against an invisible creature are at disadvantage even if the attacker has truesight or blindsight so can see them.
Sounds pretty lucky to me!
I agree in general. However, the rule is there for simplicity and to keep combat moving along.
I've considered just giving everyone disadvantage if they can't see each other since I tend to think not seeing your target has a bigger impact on interactions than them not being able to see you.
However, this then gets into how do you resolve all sorts of other types of Advantage and Disadvantage. Which cases are more powerful? Which Advantages would cancel Disadvantages and which wouldn't? Finally, does having everyone roll at Disadvantage when they can't see each other do anything more than just slow down the combat and switch the balance in the combat to the creatures with the lower to hit number?
It also leaves out the question of hearing and other senses. Does someone clanking around in armor make enough noise to partially compensate for not being able to see them? So, when combined with the fact that they can't see your attack coming, can't block with their shield or dodge effectively, the chances of doing some sort of damage more or less cancel out making a straight roll make sense?
Perhaps when you can't see them, the chances of hitting them go down but the chances of hitting in such a way as to do damage go up?
As long as the game system uses Advantage and Disadvantage to keep things reasonably simple, then it really won't be a "simulation" and having Advantage and Disadvantage cancel when creatures can't see each other in a fight is about as good a solution as any (especially considering that the characters are trained to fight and it is a high fantasy game in the first place ... comparisons to "reality" don't necessarily make a lot of sense).
This isn't debate-time. People are taking time to help explain it to you. Go watch Jeremy Crawford explain exactly how aoes and range and targetting works he's explained this exact thing in interviews.
And, again, aoe spells do not indiscriminately affect everything in their area. 100% false. And it is really obvious too if you go read any aoe spell. Because the spell description TELLS you what in the area the spell effect gets applies to. It has to tell you because not all aoe spells affect the same targets in their area.
Go look at wither and bloom vs shatter vs grease etc etc.
They all affect the area and the creatures or objects in that area differently. They're not at all indiscriminate. Some CAN be indiscriminate, but only if it says as much in the spell description. That is a property of the specific spell, not AOEs as a whole.
Edit: And to really drive home how far off base this idea you have is, if you really did apply it to a game it would let sorcerers twin spell fireball. Because they could "target" one creature with the aoe placement bead. Ain't no one ever going to buy into this idea. The reason you can't do that is because... as has been explained... the spell effect "targets" all creatures in the area.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This was wrong both times that you've said it. That's not how AOE spells work and that's not what targeting means. Nothing is being conflated. There is targeting and there is area of effect. These are two separate concepts and they are mutually exclusive.
Nope. All of this is incorrect.
In fact, areas of effect are indiscriminate -- that's 100% true. They are geometrically defined areas that are filled by the spell effect. Nothing is targeted -- the area (volume) of space is simply filled and that spell effect has a defined affect on anything that it interacts with. This is all explicitly detailed in the rules.
As for your examples, the shatter spell IS an AOE spell. It very explicitly does NOT target anything. Instead, "Each creature in a 10-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Constitution saving throw. A creature takes 3d8 thunder damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one." Nothing was targeted. Any and all creatures within the AOE are indiscriminately affected in the way that is defined by the spell.
Wither and Bloom works the same way. Nothing is targeted. This one does have an additional quirk, however, because the spellcaster can designate which creatures are eligible to be affected by the AOE which fills the space. For example, normal targeting rules don't apply -- you don't need to have a clear path to each designated creature, etc.
Grease ALSO doesn't target any creatures (sort of a strange selection of examples that you used I would say). Once again, the AOE created by this spell affects creatures indiscriminately whenever a creature interacts with that space.
It sort of looks like you were losing the thread of what was being debated here. We were discussing targeting.
Incorrect.
The sorcerer's ability to twin a spell only works on a spell which targets exactly one creature. The fireball spell targets zero creatures. It is an AOE spell -- it targets a point in space. The fireball spell cannot be twinned.
Furthermore, not only does the fireball spell not say anything about targeting creatures in the area, but also that's not how AOE spells work.