So your TLDR is you are aware that AOE spell effects aren't indiscriminately applied to everything in their area, but just really don'twanna say it? Or, did you not follow along? It seems like you agree that a couple of those aren't indiscriminate but then somehow that doesn't show AOE spells aren't indiscriminate? Odd.
Speaking of weirdness, if it seems a "strange selection", I'll repeat the lesson with additional context I sorta figured was obvious but ok here we go:
Shatter does more or less indiscriminately target everything in its area. We had to showcase a spell that does seem to be indiscriminate. Right? You need a baseline. It says, in the description, that it targets all creatures. And even all objects. Well, mostly all objects, anyway.
So shatter is a decent enough baseline of what an indiscriminate AOE looks like. So what about the other two?
Grease is also indiscriminate right? Oh but wait... it doesn't target objects. Oh shoot. How is it indiscriminately affecting everything in the area if it has no effect on objects?? Huh. We'll have to ruminate on that won't we?
And then Wither and Bloom was to show a truly not-indiscriminate AOE. It only effects creatures you chose to damage. And has a secondary but for a different secondary effect to a target of your choosing. Nothing about this spell is indiscriminate. Even remotely.
That's why those three. How discriminate or not a spell is is: Found in the spell description.
The good news is this really does seem to be the core source of your rules misunderstanding. So if we can fix this you'll be on the right track.
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.
Spells target creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect. All the spells mentionned here, mosly area of effect, target a point of origin for an area of effect, but targets are also those affected by the spell's magic, which in such case tells us what is affected by a Fireball since creatures must make a saving throw.
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
Area of Effect: Spells such as burning hands and cone of cold cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.
If anyone is ever still confused as to wether multiple creatures affected by an area of effect are considered target of it, here's a direct reference in the rules:
Damage Rolls: If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast.
So your TLDR is you are aware that AOE spell effects aren't indiscriminately applied to everything in their area, but just really don'twanna say it? Or, did you not follow along? It seems like you agree that a couple of those aren't indiscriminate but then somehow that doesn't show AOE spells aren't indiscriminate? Odd.
This is the exact opposite of what I said. When I use the word indiscriminate, it means that the spell effect isn't targeting anything specific. It simply fills a defined volume of space. The spell description then explains how creatures within that space are affected. Those creatures are not targeted -- they are indiscriminately affected.
It's like in the real world if someone is tied up and thrown into a pool of water and drowns. The water did not target that person. The water simply fills up the space within the pool and waits for a person (any person) to also be located within that same space, at which point there is a defined interaction. In this case, the person drowns, regardless of who that person was or where they were located within the area.
Shatter does more or less indiscriminately target everything in its area. . . . It says, in the description, that it targets all creatures. And even all objects.
Wrong. Shatter targets no creatures and no objects. It targets a point in space within range to be used as the origin point for the area of effect. Then, "A creature [ within that area ] takes 3d8 thunder damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one." Again, no creatures or objects were targeted.
Grease is also indiscriminate right? Oh but wait... it doesn't target objects. Oh shoot. How is it indiscriminately affecting everything in the area if it has no effect on objects?? Huh. We'll have to ruminate on that won't we?
Grease does not target creatures and it does not target objects. It creates an area of effect.
And then Wither and Bloom was to show a truly not-indiscriminate AOE. It only effects creatures you chose to damage. And has a secondary but for a different secondary effect to a target of your choosing.
Wrong. Wither and Bloom does not target creatures and it does not target objects. It creates an area of effect. "Selecting" creatures who are affected by this spell effect does not target those creatures. For example, the normal targeting rules from Chapter 10 do not apply -- a clear path to each of these creatures is NOT required.
I recommend going back and rereading the rules for Areas of Effect and for Targets, both of which can be found in the PHB, Chapter 10.
None of these besides Fireball use the word "target", though it would actually be applicable in W&B because you choose who gets hurt and who heals. W&B is not actually an AoE, it is just a range of effect (much like Steel Wind Strike, just not centered on the caster).
This is all incorrect. Steel Wind Strike mechanically functions totally differently than Wither and Bloom. Wither and Bloom IS an AoE. It doesn't target any creatures. Instead, the spellcaster is able to "choose" which creatures are eligible to be affected by each of the effects created by the spell. This selection process has nothing to do with targeting -- the normal targeting rules do NOT apply -- for example, a clear path to each of these creatures is NOT required.
Spells target creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect. All the spells mentionned here, mosly area of effect, target a point of origin for an area of effect, but targets are also those affected by the spell's magic, which in such case tells us what is affected by a Fireball since creatures must make a saving throw.
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
Area of Effect: Spells such as burning hands and cone of cold cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.
You've quoted text that does not support your claim. The claim that "targets are also those affected by the spell's magic" is incorrect. That's not what targeting is and that's not how Areas of Effect work as specified in the PHB, Chapter 10.
Yes, I am aware of what the developer has said on this subject -- he is wrong. This is one of many examples where the developer is knowingly choosing to double down on the mistake for Public Relations reasons instead of just admitting to the mistake and creating errata for spells like Fireball as quickly as possible.
If anyone is ever still confused as to wether multiple creatures affected by an area of effect are considered target of it, here's a direct reference in the rules:
Damage Rolls: If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast.
This is a badly worded rule that should be changed via errata. The intention is not what you think. They were trying to say that if a spelltargets more than one creature and damages them (like from Magic Missile) OR if some other effectaffects more than one creature and damages them (like from Fireball or Flame Strike) then you roll the damage once for all of these creatures. They attempted to shorten this sentence with the intention of just trying to be more concise and they ended up creating a nonsensical meaning in the process.
Some spells target creatures and some spells create Areas of Effect. These are two separate concepts and they are mutually exclusive.
Wow, intentionally positioning the volumetric area of an AoE so that it intentionally effects as many hostile creatures as possible with the effects of whatever the AoE is imparting is not considered “Target”ing?!
Spells target creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect. All the spells mentionned here, mosly area of effect, target a point of origin for an area of effect, but targets are also those affected by the spell's magic, which in such case tells us what is affected by a Fireball since creatures must make a saving throw.
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
Area of Effect: Spells such as burning hands and cone of cold cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.
Right, and Fireballtargets a point in space. As such it affects multiple creatures at once. But it does not target any creatures. So really strict RAW, no damage is dealt.
If it was so obviously their intent that AoEs create targets, why does no other AoE spell use the term? Shatter doesn't use the term "target", it just says creatures take X damage on a failed save and half on a success.
Again, no one is disputing the RAI. Just that on a strict RAW reading, it would deal no damage.
You're clearly mistaken. Just read the spell description. Fireball clearly targets the creatures and objects in the area. This is undeniably true.
The source of your confusion seems to be that you believe a spell can target only one of the choice: point of origin, creature, or object. When the truth is that is can target any combination of those three if you simply read the spell's description.
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.
So your TLDR is you are aware that AOE spell effects aren't indiscriminately applied to everything in their area, but just really don'twanna say it? Or, did you not follow along? It seems like you agree that a couple of those aren't indiscriminate but then somehow that doesn't show AOE spells aren't indiscriminate? Odd.
This is the exact opposite of what I said. When I use the word indiscriminate, it means that the spell effect isn't targeting anything specific. It simply fills a defined volume of space. The spell description then explains how creatures within that space are affected. Those creatures are not targeted -- they are indiscriminately affected.
It's like in the real world if someone is tied up and thrown into a pool of water and drowns. The water did not target that person. The water simply fills up the space within the pool and waits for a person (any person) to also be located within that same space, at which point there is a defined interaction. In this case, the person drowns, regardless of who that person was or where they were located within the area.
Shatter does more or less indiscriminately target everything in its area. . . . It says, in the description, that it targets all creatures. And even all objects.
Wrong. Shatter targets no creatures and no objects. It targets a point in space within range to be used as the origin point for the area of effect. Then, "A creature [ within that area ] takes 3d8 thunder damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one." Again, no creatures or objects were targeted.
Grease is also indiscriminate right? Oh but wait... it doesn't target objects. Oh shoot. How is it indiscriminately affecting everything in the area if it has no effect on objects?? Huh. We'll have to ruminate on that won't we?
Grease does not target creatures and it does not target objects. It creates an area of effect.
And then Wither and Bloom was to show a truly not-indiscriminate AOE. It only effects creatures you chose to damage. And has a secondary but for a different secondary effect to a target of your choosing.
Wrong. Wither and Bloom does not target creatures and it does not target objects. It creates an area of effect. "Selecting" creatures who are affected by this spell effect does not target those creatures. For example, the normal targeting rules from Chapter 10 do not apply -- a clear path to each of these creatures is NOT required.
I recommend going back and rereading the rules for Areas of Effect and for Targets, both of which can be found in the PHB, Chapter 10.
None of these besides Fireball use the word "target", though it would actually be applicable in W&B because you choose who gets hurt and who heals. W&B is not actually an AoE, it is just a range of effect (much like Steel Wind Strike, just not centered on the caster).
This is all incorrect. Steel Wind Strike mechanically functions totally differently than Wither and Bloom. Wither and Bloom IS an AoE. It doesn't target any creatures. Instead, the spellcaster is able to "choose" which creatures are eligible to be affected by each of the effects created by the spell. This selection process has nothing to do with targeting -- the normal targeting rules do NOT apply -- for example, a clear path to each of these creatures is NOT required.
Spells target creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect. All the spells mentionned here, mosly area of effect, target a point of origin for an area of effect, but targets are also those affected by the spell's magic, which in such case tells us what is affected by a Fireball since creatures must make a saving throw.
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
Area of Effect: Spells such as burning hands and cone of cold cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.
You've quoted text that does not support your claim. The claim that "targets are also those affected by the spell's magic" is incorrect. That's not what targeting is and that's not how Areas of Effect work as specified in the PHB, Chapter 10.
Yes, I am aware of what the developer has said on this subject -- he is wrong. This is one of many examples where the developer is knowingly choosing to double down on the mistake for Public Relations reasons instead of just admitting to the mistake and creating errata for spells like Fireball as quickly as possible.
If anyone is ever still confused as to wether multiple creatures affected by an area of effect are considered target of it, here's a direct reference in the rules:
Damage Rolls: If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast.
This is a badly worded rule that should be changed via errata. The intention is not what you think. They were trying to say that if a spelltargets more than one creature and damages them (like from Magic Missile) OR if some other effectaffects more than one creature and damages them (like from Fireball or Flame Strike) then you roll the damage once for all of these creatures. They attempted to shorten this sentence with the intention of just trying to be more concise and they ended up creating a nonsensical meaning in the process.
Some spells target creatures and some spells create Areas of Effect. These are two separate concepts and they are mutually exclusive.
Oh, ok. Your new TLDR is:
"The spells and rules are just badly worded. All of them. Because thats the only way to cling to my interpretation of what the rules are."
..............
Or, maybe consider the rules aren't wrong. And the spells aren't wrong. And only YOUR misconception is wrong? Idk I'd try that.
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.
Wow, intentionally positioning the volumetric area of an AoE so that it intentionally effects as many hostile creatures as possible with the effects of whatever the AoE is imparting is not considered “Target”ing?!
The source of your confusion seems to be that you believe a spell can target only one of the choice: point of origin, creature, or object. When the truth is that is can target any combination of those three if you simply read the spell's description.
You are drawing the wrong conclusion from this rule. The text states this:
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 literal interpretation of this statement is that indeed each of these three possible categories which can be targeted by a spell are exclusive from each other -- meaning, that spells choose one of these options. But let's assume for a moment that that's not the case and instead multiple of these categories can be chosen instead . . .
This still doesn't allow the categories themselves to be mixed with each other. In other words, even if a spell targets creatures AND objects AND a point of origin for an area of effect -- that area of effect does NOT target creatures or objects. The area of effect is its own thing with its own rules and is a mutually exclusive concept from targeting creatures and/or objects.
The text even says "described below", which refers to the section of text with the heading "Areas of Effect" which describe the rules for Areas of Effect. The key concepts outlined in that section of the text are:
-- The areas of effect cover an area "allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once".
-- The word "target" is never used -- areas of effect do not target things. They affect things indiscriminately.
-- "A spell's description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere"
-- Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how you position its point of origin.
-- A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin.
-- Specific rules are then given for each of the 5 shapes.
Very important -- note that the effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. This allows situations where portions of the AoE will be located in places that the spellcaster cannot see and where the spellcaster does not have a clear path to. In your Wither and Bloom example, you may "choose" creatures that you cannot see and that you do not have a clear path to for this reason -- if this was considered to be "targeting" the creature then those would be invalid targets. Instead, this selection process has nothing to do with targeting and you can make your choices from among any of the creatures within the AoE, as per the spell description.
"The spells and rules are just badly worded. All of them. Because thats the only way to cling to my interpretation of what the rules are."
..............
Or, maybe consider the rules aren't wrong. And the spells aren't wrong. And only YOUR misconception is wrong? Idk I'd try that.
Totally wrong. Very few of the spells in the game and the text in the rules are badly worded. It's actually shocking how consistently the authors go out of their way to avoid using the term "targeting" when it would be inappropriate to do so. There are hundreds of spells in the game and this error only occurs a few times. I've considered and rejected your suggestion.
I launch a FireBall into the middle of a group of creatures, I’m intending to target the creatures to a face full of fire damage, and hope they are not quick enough to shield themselves from half the potential damage.
When you aim an AoE to encompass as many creatures as possible, you are making every creature in that AoE a target by definition of how the AOE is designed to impart the effect towards those creatures/targets.
TL;NBTR replace creature with target in descriptions and tada, makes common sense.
I launch a FireBall into the middle of a group of creatures, I’m intending to target the creatures to a face full of fire damage, and hope they are not quick enough to shield themselves from half the potential damage.
When you aim an AoE to encompass as many creatures as possible, you are making every creature in that AoE a target by definition of how the AOE is designed to impart the effect towards those creatures/targets.
TL;NBTR replace creature with target in descriptions and tada, makes common sense.
No, all of this is incorrect. When you aim an AoE to encompass as many creatures as possible, you target a nearby point in space and the spell effect expands from a point of origin to fill a defined volume of space. This has nothing to do with targeting creatures. Creatures encompassed by the spell effect are indiscriminately affected in the way that is specified by the spell effect.
Think about it like the swimming pool example that I gave above. If I were to cast a magic spell right now that turns the room that you are sitting in right now into a giant pool of water such that you are now instantly under water . . . the water itself is not targeting you. It's just there. A particular point in space somewhere in your room was targeted in order to bring this pool of water into existence at that location. Then, the water expands until it fills the space of your room and that water persists in your room for the duration. At no point in time were you targeted in any way -- but you are probably affected in some way because you are now under water. Six seconds from now maybe you have moved into a different room and you'd no longer be under water. But if you stay in that same room you would continue to be affected. You are still not being targeted by anything -- you are just continuing to be affected by the surrounding water which happens to be filling up the space around you.
An "Area of Effect" is exactly that. It's an area (or volume) which contains a spell effect. That spell effect affects the designated area in the way that is written in the spell description. It just exists in an area. It doesn't target anyone or anything. This is fully explained in the rules in the PHB Chapter 10 in the section called "Areas of Effect" and also the section called "Targets".
Wow, intentionally positioning the volumetric area of an AoE so that it intentionally effects as many hostile creatures as possible with the effects of whatever the AoE is imparting is not considered “Target”ing?!
The source of your confusion seems to be that you believe a spell can target only one of the choice: point of origin, creature, or object. When the truth is that is can target any combination of those three if you simply read the spell's description.
You are drawing the wrong conclusion from this rule. The text states this:
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 literal interpretation of this statement is that indeed each of these three possible categories which can be targeted by a spell are exclusive from each other -- meaning, that spells choose one of these options. But let's assume for a moment that that's not the case and instead multiple of these categories can be chosen instead . . .
This still doesn't allow the categories themselves to be mixed with each other. In other words, even if a spell targets creatures AND objects AND a point of origin for an area of effect -- that area of effect does NOT target creatures or objects. The area of effect is its own thing with its own rules and is a mutually exclusive concept from targeting creatures and/or objects.
The text even says "described below", which refers to the section of text with the heading "Areas of Effect" which describe the rules for Areas of Effect. The key concepts outlined in that section of the text are:
-- The areas of effect cover an area "allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once".
-- The word "target" is never used -- areas of effect do not target things. They affect things indiscriminately.
-- "A spell's description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere"
-- Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how you position its point of origin.
-- A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin.
-- Specific rules are then given for each of the 5 shapes.
Very important -- note that the effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. This allows situations where portions of the AoE will be located in places that the spellcaster cannot see and where the spellcaster does not have a clear path to. In your Wither and Bloom example, you may "choose" creatures that you cannot see and that you do not have a clear path to for this reason -- if this was considered to be "targeting" the creature then those would be invalid targets. Instead, this selection process has nothing to do with targeting and you can make your choices from among any of the creatures within the AoE, as per the spell description.
"The spells and rules are just badly worded. All of them. Because thats the only way to cling to my interpretation of what the rules are."
..............
Or, maybe consider the rules aren't wrong. And the spells aren't wrong. And only YOUR misconception is wrong? Idk I'd try that.
Totally wrong. Very few of the spells in the game and the text in the rules are badly worded. It's actually shocking how consistently the authors go out of their way to avoid using the term "targeting" when it would be inappropriate to do so. There are hundreds of spells in the game and this error only occurs a few times. I've considered and rejected your suggestion.
My favorite part of this is where you claim its impossible for a spell to target both creatures and objects.
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.
I launch a FireBall into the middle of a group of creatures, I’m intending to target the creatures to a face full of fire damage, and hope they are not quick enough to shield themselves from half the potential damage.
When you aim an AoE to encompass as many creatures as possible, you are making every creature in that AoE a target by definition of how the AOE is designed to impart the effect towards those creatures/targets.
TL;NBTR replace creature with target in descriptions and tada, makes common sense.
No, all of this is incorrect. When you aim an AoE to encompass as many creatures as possible, you target a nearby point in space and the spell effect expands from a point of origin to fill a defined volume of space. This has nothing to do with targeting creatures. Creatures encompassed by the spell effect are indiscriminately affected in the way that is specified by the spell effect.
Think about it like the swimming pool example that I gave above. If I were to cast a magic spell right now that turns the room that you are sitting in right now into a giant pool of water such that you are now instantly under water . . . the water itself is not targeting you. It's just there. A particular point in space somewhere in your room was targeted in order to bring this pool of water into existence at that location. Then, the water expands until it fills the space of your room and that water persists in your room for the duration. At no point in time were you targeted in any way -- but you are probably affected in some way because you are now under water. Six seconds from now maybe you have moved into a different room and you'd no longer be under water. But if you stay in that same room you would continue to be affected. You are still not being targeted by anything -- you are just continuing to be affected by the surrounding water which happens to be filling up the space around you.
An "Area of Effect" is exactly that. It's an area (or volume) which contains a spell effect. That spell effect affects the designated area in the way that is written in the spell description. It just exists in an area. It doesn't target anyone or anything. This is fully explained in the rules in the PHB Chapter 10 in the section called "Areas of Effect" and also the section called "Targets".
And yet the rules also say that in the description of the effects of a spell, with various AoE characteristics, define how elements within the AoE are affected.
Sorry, but up2ng I’m quite afraid your attempt to reason the rather absurd claim that creatures within an Area of Effect are not the intended target(s) of the effects is as you say “incorrect”.
This is a badly worded rule that should be changed via errata. The intention is not what you think. They were trying to say that if a spelltargets more than one creature and damages them (like from Magic Missile) OR if some other effectaffects more than one creature and damages them (like from Fireball or Flame Strike) then you roll the damage once for all of these creatures. They attempted to shorten this sentence with the intention of just trying to be more concise and they ended up creating a nonsensical meaning in the process.
No need to extrapolate on what the dev intention were in the rules because it simply doesn't align with your conception of it. We're not discussing what the rules should have said, but what they say as written. The rule don't need errata it's been fine since 2014, you may need to reevaluate your conception or accept that it's different that what the rule say.
If anyone is ever still confused as to wether multiple creatures affected by an area of effect are considered target of it, here's a direct reference in the rules:
Damage Rolls: If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast.
This is a badly worded rule that should be changed via errata. The intention is not what you think. They were trying to say that if a spelltargets more than one creature and damages them (like from Magic Missile) OR if some other effectaffects more than one creature and damages them (like from Fireball or Flame Strike) then you roll the damage once for all of these creatures. They attempted to shorten this sentence with the intention of just trying to be more concise and they ended up creating a nonsensical meaning in the process.
Some spells target creatures and some spells create Areas of Effect. These are two separate concepts and they are mutually exclusive.
I'm sorry. We are discussing RAW. One of the designers clarified that they intended the word target to apply to BOTH the specific point used to "target" an AoE and all the creatures/objects affected by that AoE. The rule Plaguescarred cited specifically refers to all creatures selected OR affected by area of effect spells as targets of those spells. This aligns with the interpretation of RAW that everyone else has been suggesting.
It is a bit disingenuous to turn around and then say that a passage from RAW that directly contradicts your view point is badly written and should be errata'ed. It is easier (for me) to believe that the rule cited was written that way intentionally, consistent with later comments by the designer and that the use of the word "target" within the fireball spell text is intended to refer to all creatures affected by the spell as the rules citation above directly states (and uses fireball as a specific example).
If you want to re-write RAW to support your point of view then feel free, but I don't think most folks here will continue to pay attention to the discussion since it is possible for any of us to say that RAW wasn't written correctly when it disagrees with a position we've taken - which is specifically not the point of these discussions. :)
This is a badly worded rule that should be changed via errata. The intention is not what you think. They were trying to say that if a spelltargets more than one creature and damages them (like from Magic Missile) OR if some other effectaffects more than one creature and damages them (like from Fireball or Flame Strike) then you roll the damage once for all of these creatures. They attempted to shorten this sentence with the intention of just trying to be more concise and they ended up creating a nonsensical meaning in the process.
No need to extrapolate on what the dev intention were in the rules because it simply doesn't align with your conception of it. We're not discussing what the rules should have said, but what they say as written. The rule don't need errata it's been fine since 2014, you may need to reevaluate your conception or accept that it's different that what the rule say.
The rule that you quoted was this:
If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast.
This is a description about how damage rolls work in the game, written in the PHB Chapter 9: Combat --> Damage and Healing --> Damage Rolls. This has nothing to do with creating rules for spellcasting with respect to Areas of Effect and Targets. Those rules are in Chapter 10. Just because this rule erroneously uses the word "target" while in the process of making a point about damage rolls, that doesn't mean that that becomes the rule for how areas of effect and targeting works when spellcasting. It just means that the writers made an error while making a point about an unrelated concept.
I know that some of you have knee-jerk reactions whenever it is shown that the authors did NOT write the core rulebooks error free with 100% accuracy, but in fact that is the case regardless of how you might feel about it.
And yet the rules also say that in the description of the effects of a spell, with various AoE characteristics, define how elements within the AoE are affected.
Sorry, but up2ng I’m quite afraid your attempt to reason the rather absurd claim that creatures within an Area of Effect are not the intended target(s) of the effects is as you say “incorrect”.
aaaaaand wrong again. How unfortunate, it looked like we were getting somewhere.
--------------------
Ok, so just to provide some more context to what's going on here . . . In the PHB and/or Basic Rules there are 98 AoE spells.
Out of these 98 spells, 90 of them use the correct wording, following the rules that are detailed in Chapter 10 regarding Areas of Effect and regarding Targets. In these spells, there is no mention at all, explicitly or implied, of the spell effect targeting anything. Again, these spells are correctly written according to the rules:
antilife shell antimagic field antipathy/Sympathy Aura of Life Aura of Purity Aura of Vitality Black Tentacles Burning Hands Call Lightning Calm Emotions Circle of Power Cloud of Daggers Cloudkill Color Spray Cone of Cold Confusion Conjure Barrage Conjure Volley * Control Water Control Weather * Cordon of Arrows Create or Destroy Water Creation Crusader's Mantle Darkness Daylight Delayed Blast Fireball Detect Good and Evil Detect Magic Detect Poison and Disease Destructive Wave Entangle Evard's Black Tentacles Fabricate Faerie Fire Fear * Fire Storm Flame Strike Flaming Sphere Fog Cloud Forbiddance Forcecage Freezing Sphere Globe of Invulnerability Grease Guards and Wards Gust of Wind Hallow Hallucinatory Terrain Holy Aura Hunger of Hadar Hypnotic Pattern Ice Storm Incendiary Cloud Insect Plague Leomund's Tiny Hut Light Lightning Bolt Magic Circle Magnificent Mansion Major Image Meteor Swarm Minor Illusion Mirage Arcane Mold Earth Moonbeam Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum Otiluke's Freezing Sphere Private Sanctum Programmed Illusion Purify Food and Drink Pyrotechnics Resilient Sphere Reverse Gravity Shatter Silence Silent Image Sleep Sleet Storm Speak With Plants Spike Growth Spirit Guardians Stinking Cloud Sunbeam Sunburst Thunderwave Tiny Hut Web Weird Zone of Truth
Out of the 98 total spells, these 8 spells include the term "target", some legitimately and some erroneously:
Arms of Hadar Circle of Death Fireball Mass Cure Wounds Phantasmal Force Prismatic Spray Slow Symbol
In the case of Arms of Hadar, this spell is mislabeled as an AoE spell. In this case, the spell effect does not expand to fill the sphere. Instead, "tendrils of dark energy erupt from you and batter all creatures within 10 feet of you." It is clear from the spell description that the spell effect is targeting these creatures, NOT filling the defined space. This is a legitimate use of the term "target" in a spell description -- this is a targeting spell. It's just not an AoE spell.
Circle of Death -- Erroneous use of the term "target". Areas of Effect do not target things.
Fireball -- Erroneous use of the term "target". Areas of Effect do not target things.
In the case of Mass Cure Wounds, an AoE is created AND it is explicitly stated that the spellcaster targets up to 6 creatures within that area as part of casting the spell. Those creatures are affected by the spell effect. Note that normal targeting rules apply here -- if the spellcaster has no clear path to a creature then that creature is an invalid target. The wording of this spell and the resulting mechanics at play are different from Circle of Death and Fireball. In the case of Mass Cure Wounds, this is a legitimate use of the term "target" in the spell description. The spellcaster targets creatures. The spell effect does not.
In the case of Phantasmal Force, this is also basically mislabeled as an AoE spell. Basically, a phantasm is created that only exists in the mind of a target creature. There's not really an AoE involved here.
Prismatic Spray -- Erroneous use of the term "target". Areas of Effect do not target things.
In the case of Slow, an AoE is created AND it is explicitly stated that the spellcaster targets up to 6 creatures within that area as part of casting the spell. Those creatures are affected by the spell effect. Normal targeting rules apply. The wording of this spell and the resulting mechanics at play are very similar to Mass Cure Wounds. Basically, the AoE serves only to define an area within which the spellcaster can choose creatures to target. Then, the targeted creatures are affected as described. Really these are targeting spells, but technically there is an AoE in the area which affects the targeted creatures. Again, the spellcaster targets the creatures, not the AoE. This is a legitimate use of the term "target" in the spell description.
In the case of Symbol, the spell description explicitly states "Each creature in the sphere when the glyph activates is targeted by its effect, as is a creature that enters the sphere for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there." This creates an exception to how Areas of Effect normally work. The rest of the spell description then goes on to refer to "targets". This is a legitimate use of the term "target" in the spell description.
--------------------
So, out of all 98 AoE spells, only 3 of them use the term "target" incorrectly: Circle of Death, Fireball, and Prismatic Spray. These require errata in order to bring the RAW for these spells in line with the RAI of their design.
Hopefully it is now obvious that such wording does not exist for "many...many spells" as posited early on in this thread. This wording in question is actually very rare and is blatantly inconsistent with dozens of other similar spells in the game. For whatever reason, these few spells were written incorrectly. It's really that simple.
That's the whole purpose of this thread. To identify cases where the RAW does not align with the RAI in such a way that it is clear that a good DM should rule in favor of the RAI interpretation. Fireball is a perfect example of this.
I'm sorry. We are discussing RAW. One of the designers clarified that they intended the word target to apply to BOTH the specific point used to "target" an AoE and all the creatures/objects affected by that AoE.
This is actually pretty hilarious -- hopefully you can see the irony. Making a point that we are discussing the RAW and then immediately using the word "intended" as if intentions matter at all. Not to mention that there are dozens of examples where the developers are asked a question about an obvious error in the text and their response is almost always to double down on it, often using nonsensical explanations instead of just admitting to the error and fixing it. This is a very common trend that has been going on for many years.
Just as a reminder, the actual text of the Fireball spell says: "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage . . ."
According to the actual text, and not some sort of developer comment, there is exactly 1 target involved with this spell -- it's a point in space which creates the origin point for the spell effect. That's it. That's As Written.
It is a bit disingenuous to turn around and then say that a passage from RAW that directly contradicts your view point is badly written and should be errata'ed.
No, it's not at all. Not when it is shown with quotes of many other rules how things are supposed to work. This is actually quite common in 5e. Movement rules, hiding rules, and so on and so forth -- there are lots of examples where rules related to a concept are spread out and one of them is inconsistent with all of the others simply because it was not well written. You've been involved in enough of those threads to know this.
Please reread the actual rules regarding Areas of Effect and Targets which exist in Chapter 10. Then, go back and see what the quoted rule about damage rolls says in Chapter 9 and see if you still think it was intentional. In context, when reading all of the rules in totality, it's obvious to me that the phrasing used in the Damage Rolls rule is an error. It's not consistent with how these concepts interact throughout the entire rest of the game with the exception of 3 poorly written spells. If you still don't see it that way then good for you I guess. You'll just have to reconcile the inconsistency in some other way then.
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.
I don't think it makes a lick of sense, but I take your point that, sure, it would help speed things along.
Just as a reminder, the actual text of the Fireball spell says: "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage . . ."
According to the actual text, and not some sort of developer comment, there is exactly 1 target involved with this spell -- it's a point in space which creates the origin point for the spell effect. That's it. That's As Written.
This is actually where we fundamentally disagree.
"Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage . . ."
In my reading of the rules, target refers to multiple things - it is the aiming point for an AoE spell AND it is all the creatures/objects affected by the AoE spell. "Target" is used in different contexts to mean both of these things.
In the sentence above "Each creature" in the first sentence has been replaced by the word "target" in the second. It isn't referring to some targeting point of the spell, that use of the word target refers to the creatures affected by the spell. The rules use the word "target" to mean two discrete and different things that varies by context. IF the rules had only one usage of the word target and ONLY that one way was acceptable then you'd be correct - all the other usages would be errors to be errata'd. It would make the rules consistent in their usage of the word "target". However, this is the English language we are talking about. Target can mean different things in different parts of the rules - it may make the rules harder to use and obviously perhaps more difficult to interpret but not wrong.
It is a bit disingenuous to turn around and then say that a passage from RAW that directly contradicts your view point is badly written and should be errata'ed.
No, it's not at all. Not when it is shown with quotes of many other rules how things are supposed to work. This is actually quite common in 5e. Movement rules, hiding rules, and so on and so forth -- there are lots of examples where rules related to a concept are spread out and one of them is inconsistent with all of the others simply because it was not well written. You've been involved in enough of those threads to know this.
Please reread the actual rules regarding Areas of Effect and Targets which exist in Chapter 10. Then, go back and see what the quoted rule about damage rolls says in Chapter 9 and see if you still think it was intentional. In context, when reading all of the rules in totality, it's obvious to me that the phrasing used in the Damage Rolls rule is an error. It's not consistent with how these concepts interact throughout the entire rest of the game with the exception of 3 poorly written spells. If you still don't see it that way then good for you I guess. You'll just have to reconcile the inconsistency in some other way then.
Ok. I think we just agree to disagree. :)
As far as I can tell, the rules use the word "target" to mean two different things.
1) The aiming points of a spell
"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)."
2) All the creatures affected by a spell.
"Damage Rolls: If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast."
""A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage . . ."
In my reading of the rules, BOTH definitions of the word are actively used.
It is used in the damage rolls reference and in the spells "circle of death", "fireball" and "prismatic spray".
I do NOT find it problematic that the rules use the word target to mean two different things since it is generally clear from context that the "target" refers to both the aiming point of the spell and all the creatures affected by the spell.
However, for some reason, you have decided (arbitrarily in my opinion), that all references that do NOT agree with the usage of the word target as the aiming point of the spell must be an error that needs to be errata'd.
"So, out of all 98 AoE spells, only 3 of them use the term "target" incorrectly: Circle of Death, Fireball, and Prismatic Spray. These require errata in order to bring the RAW for these spells in line with the RAI of their design."
In your opinion, it would appear that the only valid use of the word target in the rules is in the first case above:
"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)."
I simply disagree - the rules aren't a legal document - there is no problem with the rules using the word target to refer to both the aiming point of an AoE spell AND the creatures affected by an AoE spell as targets. Could the rules be written more consistently so that target had only one meaning within the context of the rules? YES ... but that is not how they are currently written and that is fine too .. target has two discrete meanings that are easy to discern based on the context of usage within the rules.
My favorite stupidest/goofiest "RAW" is that the cantrip Friends has no actual range.
"For the duration, you have advantage on all Charisma checks directed at one creature of your choice that isn't hostile toward you. " It doesn't mention a range, or a creature that you can see. (the spell has a range of SELF).
Although this part would be useless if you are far away of your target, the next bit of the spell is incredibly funny: "When the spell ends, the creature realizes that you used magic to influence its mood and becomes hostile toward you."
So, you can cast Friends on yourself to get the advantage of Charisma and pick the King of a distant country as your "target". Then when the spell ends, they will get hostile to you, causing all forms of chaos. I'm not sure how it all works, making someone hate you from infinite distance without ever talking to them, but by RAW this is possible. But incredibly stupid.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So your TLDR is you are aware that AOE spell effects aren't indiscriminately applied to everything in their area, but just really don'twanna say it? Or, did you not follow along? It seems like you agree that a couple of those aren't indiscriminate but then somehow that doesn't show AOE spells aren't indiscriminate? Odd.
Speaking of weirdness, if it seems a "strange selection", I'll repeat the lesson with additional context I sorta figured was obvious but ok here we go:
Shatter does more or less indiscriminately target everything in its area. We had to showcase a spell that does seem to be indiscriminate. Right? You need a baseline. It says, in the description, that it targets all creatures. And even all objects. Well, mostly all objects, anyway.
So shatter is a decent enough baseline of what an indiscriminate AOE looks like. So what about the other two?
Grease is also indiscriminate right? Oh but wait... it doesn't target objects. Oh shoot. How is it indiscriminately affecting everything in the area if it has no effect on objects?? Huh. We'll have to ruminate on that won't we?
And then Wither and Bloom was to show a truly not-indiscriminate AOE. It only effects creatures you chose to damage. And has a secondary but for a different secondary effect to a target of your choosing. Nothing about this spell is indiscriminate. Even remotely.
That's why those three. How discriminate or not a spell is is: Found in the spell description.
The good news is this really does seem to be the core source of your rules misunderstanding. So if we can fix this you'll be on the right track.
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.
Spells target creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect. All the spells mentionned here, mosly area of effect, target a point of origin for an area of effect, but targets are also those affected by the spell's magic, which in such case tells us what is affected by a Fireball since creatures must make a saving throw.
If anyone is ever still confused as to wether multiple creatures affected by an area of effect are considered target of it, here's a direct reference in the rules:
This is the exact opposite of what I said. When I use the word indiscriminate, it means that the spell effect isn't targeting anything specific. It simply fills a defined volume of space. The spell description then explains how creatures within that space are affected. Those creatures are not targeted -- they are indiscriminately affected.
It's like in the real world if someone is tied up and thrown into a pool of water and drowns. The water did not target that person. The water simply fills up the space within the pool and waits for a person (any person) to also be located within that same space, at which point there is a defined interaction. In this case, the person drowns, regardless of who that person was or where they were located within the area.
Wrong. Shatter targets no creatures and no objects. It targets a point in space within range to be used as the origin point for the area of effect. Then, "A creature [ within that area ] takes 3d8 thunder damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one." Again, no creatures or objects were targeted.
Grease does not target creatures and it does not target objects. It creates an area of effect.
Wrong. Wither and Bloom does not target creatures and it does not target objects. It creates an area of effect. "Selecting" creatures who are affected by this spell effect does not target those creatures. For example, the normal targeting rules from Chapter 10 do not apply -- a clear path to each of these creatures is NOT required.
I recommend going back and rereading the rules for Areas of Effect and for Targets, both of which can be found in the PHB, Chapter 10.
This is all incorrect. Steel Wind Strike mechanically functions totally differently than Wither and Bloom. Wither and Bloom IS an AoE. It doesn't target any creatures. Instead, the spellcaster is able to "choose" which creatures are eligible to be affected by each of the effects created by the spell. This selection process has nothing to do with targeting -- the normal targeting rules do NOT apply -- for example, a clear path to each of these creatures is NOT required.
You've quoted text that does not support your claim. The claim that "targets are also those affected by the spell's magic" is incorrect. That's not what targeting is and that's not how Areas of Effect work as specified in the PHB, Chapter 10.
Yes, I am aware of what the developer has said on this subject -- he is wrong. This is one of many examples where the developer is knowingly choosing to double down on the mistake for Public Relations reasons instead of just admitting to the mistake and creating errata for spells like Fireball as quickly as possible.
This is a badly worded rule that should be changed via errata. The intention is not what you think. They were trying to say that if a spell targets more than one creature and damages them (like from Magic Missile) OR if some other effect affects more than one creature and damages them (like from Fireball or Flame Strike) then you roll the damage once for all of these creatures. They attempted to shorten this sentence with the intention of just trying to be more concise and they ended up creating a nonsensical meaning in the process.
Some spells target creatures and some spells create Areas of Effect. These are two separate concepts and they are mutually exclusive.
Wow, intentionally positioning the volumetric area of an AoE so that it intentionally effects as many hostile creatures as possible with the effects of whatever the AoE is imparting is not considered “Target”ing?!
Surely, you are mislead in such logic?!
You're clearly mistaken. Just read the spell description. Fireball clearly targets the creatures and objects in the area. This is undeniably true.
The source of your confusion seems to be that you believe a spell can target only one of the choice: point of origin, creature, or object. When the truth is that is can target any combination of those three if you simply read the spell's description.
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.
Oh, ok. Your new TLDR is:
"The spells and rules are just badly worded. All of them. Because thats the only way to cling to my interpretation of what the rules are."
..............
Or, maybe consider the rules aren't wrong. And the spells aren't wrong. And only YOUR misconception is wrong? Idk I'd try that.
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.
Correct.
Incorrect.
In terms of RAW this is incorrect. In terms of the RAI this is very likely the best interpretation.
You are drawing the wrong conclusion from this rule. The text states this:
A literal interpretation of this statement is that indeed each of these three possible categories which can be targeted by a spell are exclusive from each other -- meaning, that spells choose one of these options. But let's assume for a moment that that's not the case and instead multiple of these categories can be chosen instead . . .
This still doesn't allow the categories themselves to be mixed with each other. In other words, even if a spell targets creatures AND objects AND a point of origin for an area of effect -- that area of effect does NOT target creatures or objects. The area of effect is its own thing with its own rules and is a mutually exclusive concept from targeting creatures and/or objects.
The text even says "described below", which refers to the section of text with the heading "Areas of Effect" which describe the rules for Areas of Effect. The key concepts outlined in that section of the text are:
-- The areas of effect cover an area "allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once".
-- The word "target" is never used -- areas of effect do not target things. They affect things indiscriminately.
-- "A spell's description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere"
-- Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how you position its point of origin.
-- A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin.
-- Specific rules are then given for each of the 5 shapes.
Very important -- note that the effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. This allows situations where portions of the AoE will be located in places that the spellcaster cannot see and where the spellcaster does not have a clear path to. In your Wither and Bloom example, you may "choose" creatures that you cannot see and that you do not have a clear path to for this reason -- if this was considered to be "targeting" the creature then those would be invalid targets. Instead, this selection process has nothing to do with targeting and you can make your choices from among any of the creatures within the AoE, as per the spell description.
Totally wrong. Very few of the spells in the game and the text in the rules are badly worded. It's actually shocking how consistently the authors go out of their way to avoid using the term "targeting" when it would be inappropriate to do so. There are hundreds of spells in the game and this error only occurs a few times. I've considered and rejected your suggestion.
I launch a FireBall into the middle of a group of creatures, I’m intending to target the creatures to a face full of fire damage, and hope they are not quick enough to shield themselves from half the potential damage.
When you aim an AoE to encompass as many creatures as possible, you are making every creature in that AoE a target by definition of how the AOE is designed to impart the effect towards those creatures/targets.
TL;NBTR replace creature with target in descriptions and tada, makes common sense.
No, all of this is incorrect. When you aim an AoE to encompass as many creatures as possible, you target a nearby point in space and the spell effect expands from a point of origin to fill a defined volume of space. This has nothing to do with targeting creatures. Creatures encompassed by the spell effect are indiscriminately affected in the way that is specified by the spell effect.
Think about it like the swimming pool example that I gave above. If I were to cast a magic spell right now that turns the room that you are sitting in right now into a giant pool of water such that you are now instantly under water . . . the water itself is not targeting you. It's just there. A particular point in space somewhere in your room was targeted in order to bring this pool of water into existence at that location. Then, the water expands until it fills the space of your room and that water persists in your room for the duration. At no point in time were you targeted in any way -- but you are probably affected in some way because you are now under water. Six seconds from now maybe you have moved into a different room and you'd no longer be under water. But if you stay in that same room you would continue to be affected. You are still not being targeted by anything -- you are just continuing to be affected by the surrounding water which happens to be filling up the space around you.
An "Area of Effect" is exactly that. It's an area (or volume) which contains a spell effect. That spell effect affects the designated area in the way that is written in the spell description. It just exists in an area. It doesn't target anyone or anything. This is fully explained in the rules in the PHB Chapter 10 in the section called "Areas of Effect" and also the section called "Targets".
My favorite part of this is where you claim its impossible for a spell to target both creatures and objects.
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.
And yet the rules also say that in the description of the effects of a spell, with various AoE characteristics, define how elements within the AoE are affected.
Sorry, but up2ng I’m quite afraid your attempt to reason the rather absurd claim that creatures within an Area of Effect are not the intended target(s) of the effects is as you say “incorrect”.
No need to extrapolate on what the dev intention were in the rules because it simply doesn't align with your conception of it. We're not discussing what the rules should have said, but what they say as written. The rule don't need errata it's been fine since 2014, you may need to reevaluate your conception or accept that it's different that what the rule say.
I'm sorry. We are discussing RAW. One of the designers clarified that they intended the word target to apply to BOTH the specific point used to "target" an AoE and all the creatures/objects affected by that AoE. The rule Plaguescarred cited specifically refers to all creatures selected OR affected by area of effect spells as targets of those spells. This aligns with the interpretation of RAW that everyone else has been suggesting.
It is a bit disingenuous to turn around and then say that a passage from RAW that directly contradicts your view point is badly written and should be errata'ed. It is easier (for me) to believe that the rule cited was written that way intentionally, consistent with later comments by the designer and that the use of the word "target" within the fireball spell text is intended to refer to all creatures affected by the spell as the rules citation above directly states (and uses fireball as a specific example).
If you want to re-write RAW to support your point of view then feel free, but I don't think most folks here will continue to pay attention to the discussion since it is possible for any of us to say that RAW wasn't written correctly when it disagrees with a position we've taken - which is specifically not the point of these discussions. :)
The rule that you quoted was this:
This is a description about how damage rolls work in the game, written in the PHB Chapter 9: Combat --> Damage and Healing --> Damage Rolls. This has nothing to do with creating rules for spellcasting with respect to Areas of Effect and Targets. Those rules are in Chapter 10. Just because this rule erroneously uses the word "target" while in the process of making a point about damage rolls, that doesn't mean that that becomes the rule for how areas of effect and targeting works when spellcasting. It just means that the writers made an error while making a point about an unrelated concept.
I know that some of you have knee-jerk reactions whenever it is shown that the authors did NOT write the core rulebooks error free with 100% accuracy, but in fact that is the case regardless of how you might feel about it.
And now I guess we've reached the making-things-up portion of this thread because I have made no such claim.
Yes!! Exactly correct!!!
aaaaaand wrong again. How unfortunate, it looked like we were getting somewhere.
--------------------
Ok, so just to provide some more context to what's going on here . . . In the PHB and/or Basic Rules there are 98 AoE spells.
Out of these 98 spells, 90 of them use the correct wording, following the rules that are detailed in Chapter 10 regarding Areas of Effect and regarding Targets. In these spells, there is no mention at all, explicitly or implied, of the spell effect targeting anything. Again, these spells are correctly written according to the rules:
antilife shell
antimagic field
antipathy/Sympathy
Aura of Life
Aura of Purity
Aura of Vitality
Black Tentacles
Burning Hands
Call Lightning
Calm Emotions
Circle of Power
Cloud of Daggers
Cloudkill
Color Spray
Cone of Cold
Confusion
Conjure Barrage
Conjure Volley
* Control Water
Control Weather
* Cordon of Arrows
Create or Destroy Water
Creation
Crusader's Mantle
Darkness
Daylight
Delayed Blast Fireball
Detect Good and Evil
Detect Magic
Detect Poison and Disease
Destructive Wave
Entangle
Evard's Black Tentacles
Fabricate
Faerie Fire
Fear
* Fire Storm
Flame Strike
Flaming Sphere
Fog Cloud
Forbiddance
Forcecage
Freezing Sphere
Globe of Invulnerability
Grease
Guards and Wards
Gust of Wind
Hallow
Hallucinatory Terrain
Holy Aura
Hunger of Hadar
Hypnotic Pattern
Ice Storm
Incendiary Cloud
Insect Plague
Leomund's Tiny Hut
Light
Lightning Bolt
Magic Circle
Magnificent Mansion
Major Image
Meteor Swarm
Minor Illusion
Mirage Arcane
Mold Earth
Moonbeam
Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum
Otiluke's Freezing Sphere
Private Sanctum
Programmed Illusion
Purify Food and Drink
Pyrotechnics
Resilient Sphere
Reverse Gravity
Shatter
Silence
Silent Image
Sleep
Sleet Storm
Speak With Plants
Spike Growth
Spirit Guardians
Stinking Cloud
Sunbeam
Sunburst
Thunderwave
Tiny Hut
Web
Weird
Zone of Truth
Out of the 98 total spells, these 8 spells include the term "target", some legitimately and some erroneously:
Arms of Hadar
Circle of Death
Fireball
Mass Cure Wounds
Phantasmal Force
Prismatic Spray
Slow
Symbol
In the case of Arms of Hadar, this spell is mislabeled as an AoE spell. In this case, the spell effect does not expand to fill the sphere. Instead, "tendrils of dark energy erupt from you and batter all creatures within 10 feet of you." It is clear from the spell description that the spell effect is targeting these creatures, NOT filling the defined space. This is a legitimate use of the term "target" in a spell description -- this is a targeting spell. It's just not an AoE spell.
Circle of Death -- Erroneous use of the term "target". Areas of Effect do not target things.
Fireball -- Erroneous use of the term "target". Areas of Effect do not target things.
In the case of Mass Cure Wounds, an AoE is created AND it is explicitly stated that the spellcaster targets up to 6 creatures within that area as part of casting the spell. Those creatures are affected by the spell effect. Note that normal targeting rules apply here -- if the spellcaster has no clear path to a creature then that creature is an invalid target. The wording of this spell and the resulting mechanics at play are different from Circle of Death and Fireball. In the case of Mass Cure Wounds, this is a legitimate use of the term "target" in the spell description. The spellcaster targets creatures. The spell effect does not.
In the case of Phantasmal Force, this is also basically mislabeled as an AoE spell. Basically, a phantasm is created that only exists in the mind of a target creature. There's not really an AoE involved here.
Prismatic Spray -- Erroneous use of the term "target". Areas of Effect do not target things.
In the case of Slow, an AoE is created AND it is explicitly stated that the spellcaster targets up to 6 creatures within that area as part of casting the spell. Those creatures are affected by the spell effect. Normal targeting rules apply. The wording of this spell and the resulting mechanics at play are very similar to Mass Cure Wounds. Basically, the AoE serves only to define an area within which the spellcaster can choose creatures to target. Then, the targeted creatures are affected as described. Really these are targeting spells, but technically there is an AoE in the area which affects the targeted creatures. Again, the spellcaster targets the creatures, not the AoE. This is a legitimate use of the term "target" in the spell description.
In the case of Symbol, the spell description explicitly states "Each creature in the sphere when the glyph activates is targeted by its effect, as is a creature that enters the sphere for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there." This creates an exception to how Areas of Effect normally work. The rest of the spell description then goes on to refer to "targets". This is a legitimate use of the term "target" in the spell description.
--------------------
So, out of all 98 AoE spells, only 3 of them use the term "target" incorrectly: Circle of Death, Fireball, and Prismatic Spray. These require errata in order to bring the RAW for these spells in line with the RAI of their design.
Hopefully it is now obvious that such wording does not exist for "many...many spells" as posited early on in this thread. This wording in question is actually very rare and is blatantly inconsistent with dozens of other similar spells in the game. For whatever reason, these few spells were written incorrectly. It's really that simple.
That's the whole purpose of this thread. To identify cases where the RAW does not align with the RAI in such a way that it is clear that a good DM should rule in favor of the RAI interpretation. Fireball is a perfect example of this.
This is actually pretty hilarious -- hopefully you can see the irony. Making a point that we are discussing the RAW and then immediately using the word "intended" as if intentions matter at all. Not to mention that there are dozens of examples where the developers are asked a question about an obvious error in the text and their response is almost always to double down on it, often using nonsensical explanations instead of just admitting to the error and fixing it. This is a very common trend that has been going on for many years.
Just as a reminder, the actual text of the Fireball spell says: "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage . . ."
According to the actual text, and not some sort of developer comment, there is exactly 1 target involved with this spell -- it's a point in space which creates the origin point for the spell effect. That's it. That's As Written.
No, it's not at all. Not when it is shown with quotes of many other rules how things are supposed to work. This is actually quite common in 5e. Movement rules, hiding rules, and so on and so forth -- there are lots of examples where rules related to a concept are spread out and one of them is inconsistent with all of the others simply because it was not well written. You've been involved in enough of those threads to know this.
Please reread the actual rules regarding Areas of Effect and Targets which exist in Chapter 10. Then, go back and see what the quoted rule about damage rolls says in Chapter 9 and see if you still think it was intentional. In context, when reading all of the rules in totality, it's obvious to me that the phrasing used in the Damage Rolls rule is an error. It's not consistent with how these concepts interact throughout the entire rest of the game with the exception of 3 poorly written spells. If you still don't see it that way then good for you I guess. You'll just have to reconcile the inconsistency in some other way then.
How simple can one make it, hummmm…..
Each creature ( or whatever ) within a defined area in every AOE is a target.
If that very specific statement has to be expressly stated in every AoE spell, that is the very definition of absurdity.
Oh, wait it is already is stated in the majority of AoEs’ isn’t that absurd?!
I don't think it makes a lick of sense, but I take your point that, sure, it would help speed things along.
This is actually where we fundamentally disagree.
"Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage . . ."
In my reading of the rules, target refers to multiple things - it is the aiming point for an AoE spell AND it is all the creatures/objects affected by the AoE spell. "Target" is used in different contexts to mean both of these things.
In the sentence above "Each creature" in the first sentence has been replaced by the word "target" in the second. It isn't referring to some targeting point of the spell, that use of the word target refers to the creatures affected by the spell. The rules use the word "target" to mean two discrete and different things that varies by context. IF the rules had only one usage of the word target and ONLY that one way was acceptable then you'd be correct - all the other usages would be errors to be errata'd. It would make the rules consistent in their usage of the word "target". However, this is the English language we are talking about. Target can mean different things in different parts of the rules - it may make the rules harder to use and obviously perhaps more difficult to interpret but not wrong.
Ok. I think we just agree to disagree. :)
As far as I can tell, the rules use the word "target" to mean two different things.
1) The aiming points of a spell
"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)."
2) All the creatures affected by a spell.
"Damage Rolls: If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast."
""A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage . . ."
In my reading of the rules, BOTH definitions of the word are actively used.
It is used in the damage rolls reference and in the spells "circle of death", "fireball" and "prismatic spray".
I do NOT find it problematic that the rules use the word target to mean two different things since it is generally clear from context that the "target" refers to both the aiming point of the spell and all the creatures affected by the spell.
However, for some reason, you have decided (arbitrarily in my opinion), that all references that do NOT agree with the usage of the word target as the aiming point of the spell must be an error that needs to be errata'd.
"So, out of all 98 AoE spells, only 3 of them use the term "target" incorrectly: Circle of Death, Fireball, and Prismatic Spray. These require errata in order to bring the RAW for these spells in line with the RAI of their design."
In your opinion, it would appear that the only valid use of the word target in the rules is in the first case above:
"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)."
I simply disagree - the rules aren't a legal document - there is no problem with the rules using the word target to refer to both the aiming point of an AoE spell AND the creatures affected by an AoE spell as targets. Could the rules be written more consistently so that target had only one meaning within the context of the rules? YES ... but that is not how they are currently written and that is fine too .. target has two discrete meanings that are easy to discern based on the context of usage within the rules.
My favorite stupidest/goofiest "RAW" is that the cantrip Friends has no actual range.
"For the duration, you have advantage on all Charisma checks directed at one creature of your choice that isn't hostile toward you. " It doesn't mention a range, or a creature that you can see. (the spell has a range of SELF).
Although this part would be useless if you are far away of your target, the next bit of the spell is incredibly funny: "When the spell ends, the creature realizes that you used magic to influence its mood and becomes hostile toward you."
So, you can cast Friends on yourself to get the advantage of Charisma and pick the King of a distant country as your "target". Then when the spell ends, they will get hostile to you, causing all forms of chaos. I'm not sure how it all works, making someone hate you from infinite distance without ever talking to them, but by RAW this is possible. But incredibly stupid.