How *should* booming blade be written so that it is not applicable for twin spell or distant spell and works with War Caster?
1) Don't make it a spell at all. Make it an optional feature available to gish subclasses, a la Divine Smite
2) Give it a range of straight Self and a duration of, say, 8 hours (like mage armor and other self-buffs), and while it's active, you can make one melee attack per turn with the add-ons
One of the fundamental problems with booming blade is that the rules distinguish between the Attack action and the Cast a Spell action, but they tried to make a spell that does both at the same time
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I mean, Crawford admitted in that video earlier in the thread that booming blade/green-flame blade were an experiment
It's OK to label them a failed experiment
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
How *should* booming blade be written so that it is not applicable for twin spell or distant spell and works with War Caster?
1) Don't make it a spell at all. Make it an optional feature available to gish subclasses, a la Divine Smite
2) Give it a range of straight Self and a duration of, say, 8 hours (like mage armor and other self-buffs), and while it's active, you can make one melee attack per turn with the add-ons
One of the fundamental problems with booming blade is that the rules distinguish between the Attack action and the Cast a Spell action, but they tried to make a spell that does both at the same time
This entirely misses the point of the challenge I made. The argument here is that booming blade does not work with war caster, because it does not target the creature provoking. The reason given is that self is included in the range, therefore the spell must target self. So the point of the challenge is... how can this range block be changed such that it works with War Caster but doesn't with twin while still keeping the same effect. Maybe you can change the effect for this, but not substantially. Your revision must still make a melee attack against a creature within five feet and target that creature, with this spell and have all the same effects applied to that target.
Why am I making the challenge? Because it is my position, as well as many others here, that if the spell has you do a melee attack to target the attack target, and have a point of origin at self which is not targeted, it would be written exactly as it is. If you disagree, then how would it be written to accomplish this intent? Because I believe it does accomplish this as it is written.
The argument here is that booming blade does not work with war caster, because it does not target the creature provoking.
And my point has been that trying to write it in such a way that it works with War Caster is a fool's errand, and the attempts to do so by folks at WotC -- who actually get paid to do that sort of thing -- resulted in a total clusterf*** of a spell. So why would I want to make a different clusterf*** for free?
I gave you two potential solutions to the problem -- which is that booming blade is poorly and confusingly written, resulting in threads like this
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The argument here is that booming blade does not work with war caster, because it does not target the creature provoking.
And my point has been that trying to write it in such a way that it works with War Caster is a fool's errand, and the attempts to do so by folks at WotC -- who actually get paid to do that sort of thing -- resulted in a total clusterf*** of a spell. So why would I want to make a different clusterf*** for free?
I gave you two potential solutions to the problem -- which is that booming blade is poorly and confusingly written, resulting in threads like this
That's fine. You can have that opinion. I'm not going to argue with it.
So since the catapult spell is being disputed, I thought I'd throw a similar example to that spell…
Chain Lightning
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 150 feet
Components: V, S, M (a bit of fur; a piece of amber, glass, or a crystal rod; and three silver pins)
Duration: Instantaneous
You create a bolt of lightning that arcs toward a target of your choice that you can see within range. Three bolts then leap from that target to as many as three other targets, each of which must be within 30 feet of the first target. A target can be a creature or an object and can be targeted by only one of the bolts.
A target must make a Dexterity saving throw. The target takes 10d8 lightning damage on a failed save, or half as much on a successful one.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 7th level or higher, one additional bolt leaps from the first target to another target for each slot level above 6th.
It's clear on this description that you target one creature within range, then 3 creatures in a different range. The range is from the initial target, thus the other targets can be outside the 150ft range of the spell. It explicitly calls them targets in the same sense as the initial target since it uses the term “other targets.” Is this also erroneous? Or are you seeing a pattern?
Do not call me a liar. I called you out and you gaslighted me. That's unacceptable.
Ok, there's obviously been some sort of misunderstanding as I honestly have no idea what this is referring to. Let me just apologize for whatever it was so that we can get back on-topic.
I don't think it is possible to have the description of Booming Blade with the same effect but that targets the melee target and making it eligible for war caster but ineligible for twin . . . the current design [ does ] this by cleverly using the interaction between spellcasting and melee combat.
I still feel like I'm missing something here about why we care whether or not the spell is Twinnable? Wasn't the original question about whether or not the spell works in combination with War Caster?
But regardless, the problem with "using the interaction between spellcasting and melee combat" is that the War Caster Feat has specific requirements -- you need to cast the spell at the provoking creature and the spell must target only that creature. This "interaction" just doesn't meet these requirements. The spell would have to say something like "you make a melee spell attack against a creature within range" and the range would have to make sense for that text. That is the sort of spell that targets a creature and that is cast at a creature. The current iteration of the Booming Blade spell is not designed that way. The old version of the spell does qualify for War Caster though -- so it's useful to note the differences between those two versions of the spell.
What does it mean by "targets to be affected by the spell’s magic"?
The very next sentence in the rule answers this question for us. It clarifies exactly what was meant in that first sentence:
A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect
So, all together, this rule reads as (paraphrasing): "You pick a target to be affected by the spell's magic . . . ok, what can I affect with the spell's magic? Answer: Creatures, Objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect."
5-foot radius is part of the range. Targets can be within 5 feet and within range... Why else would it be in the range block? The point of the range block is to tell you eligible targets, right? So five feet is within range.
Ok, let's try it like this. I'll start with an example:
The Fireball spell has a range of 150 feet and it has an area that is a 20-foot-radius sphere. The range tells you how far away I can put my Fireball. I can only put the center of the sphere 150 feet away from me. However, if I am careful, I can make sure that a creature that is standing 165 feet away from me is affected by the explosion created by my Fireball. Even though that creature is outside of the range, the game design intention is that I can still affect that creature. That's why these two rules work together for AoE spells:
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range.
and
Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise.
So, the answer is no. The 5-foot-radius is not part of the Range. That determines the size and shape of the area of effect that is created by casting the spell within range. Even though the hardcopy books just list the parameter as "Range" and often leave out the information about the AoE, the up-to-date online entries use the notation of Range/Area or Range (Area), meaning that the Range of the spell is the first number, and the part that is inside the parentheses is the information about the area of effect that is created when you cast the spell within range.
When a spell has the notation "Self (5-foot-radius)" that means that the Range for the spell is "self", and the eligible targets are all within that Range. The center of the sphere is created at the target within range and then expands outwards into a 5-foot-radius sphere.
Again, self parentheses is a special category. They don't confirm to typical spell norms.
There's actually nothing in the rules that says that this is a special category. It works just like all other notations that have a range and an area. The only interesting thing of note is that the list of valid targets for the "self (area)" spells are ever so slightly different than the list of valid targets for the "self" spells. For the non-AoE "self" notation, the target can only be the spellcaster. For the AoE "self (area)" notation, the target can be either the spellcaster or a point in space at the spellcaster's location -- the rest of the spell description will inform us about which of these valid choices are used.
What would help is if you cites something that actually says what you're saying... something that says "The point of origin is always the target when there is one." Instead you cite "A spell’s description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect" and say... "see, see! The point of origin has to be the target..." as if there aren't 2 other options.
There aren't two other options for AoE spells though. "For an area of effect . . . a point of origin". Perhaps confusingly, the point of origin CAN be an actual creature -- but usually it's a point in space. Literally the area of effect cannot come into existence unless you put it somewhere. It's really the only thing that those spells actually do. They create the area of effect. The rest of the text describes what that area of effect is and how it might interact with creatures and objects within its space.
The other two options, creatures and objects are only for non-AoE spells. Also, conversely, those are the only two options for non-AoE spells. You don't target a point of origin if there will be no AoE created there.
Also, further evidence is that this is the only way that the two other rules that I quoted above actually make any sense. That the target has to be in range, but the AoE can extend beyond the range. None of that actually works correctly unless the targeting system is the way I've been describing it.
I disagree with you about the Catapult spell for the reasons that I've already stated. Pull up the Magic Stone spell and note the differences in spell design and proper usage of the term "target" for these types of spells. It doesn't matter if it's a longer duration and requires separate actions. Spells that actually target creatures are always written a certain way. They say things like "make a ranged spell attack against a creature within range". That is what it looks like when a spell targets a creature.
Because a reasonable person with a grasp of the English language would read booming blade and assume it hits only one target.
Not if that person has also read the general rules for spellcasting from Chapter 10 of the PHB and understands what "Range (5-foot-radius)" means.
. . .
Still nobody has really explained to me why we are talking about whether or not the spell is Twinnable. Who cares? That wasn't the question in the OP. But here we go again I guess . . .
And now, you (only you, not the D&D 5e rules) are saying that you can't specify a Range for the following spell to work with War Caster but not be Twinnable, right? So, according to your own incorrect rules, this variation of the spell isn't possible in the world of D&D.
Range:[put here a range that allows the spell to benefit from the War Caster feat but not from Twin Spell]
Solution: the currently official Booming Blade spell.
This is wrong. All you have to do is compare the requirements of working with War Caster with the requirements for being a Twinnable spell. I have already quoted and posted these side by side. The only possible way for any spell to work with War Caster but not be Twinnable is if the spell directly targets the creature but could be capable of targeting more than one. That's it. There exist no shenanigans with creating a special range that works for this purpose at all.
Your distaste for the flavor of the spell aside, that has nothing to do with making a cantrip (really any spell, whether it includes a melee attack or not) that is a 1 target, 1 action spell and is eligible for War Caster and not Twinned Spell, which was the goal of the errata that changed the range to its current state.
OOOOH!! Ok, I missed this somewhere along the way that's why I've been so confused. Is this really why we're talking about Twinned Spell? Because a designer made a comment that they wanted the spell to work with War Caster but not Twinned Spell? My apologies.
If this was the intent, then they failed. All they had to do was read the descriptions for war caster and for twinned spell. The only difference is that one must target only one creature and the other must target only one creature AND be capable of only targeting one creature. That's it.
In terms of only making sure that Booming Blade is not Twinnable, they did come up with a pretty decent solution for that.
There's another potential solution: read the rules like the designers do, and then everything just works.
The problem with that is that the designers are often wrong about what is in the rules.
--------------------
I'll tell you what. I feel like I've given all of the necessary information for the original question of this thread several times. I'm going to attempt to back out of the conversation now since it seems like no one is interested in the information that I keep presenting to the group. I'll give you all the last word and maybe we can end this thread -- but that only works if no one quotes my text and tells me that I'm wrong and if no one directly asks me questions that they expect me to answer. I would continue to respond to these. But if you want to just give your interpretation one more time I won't jump in on that. Let's see how that goes . . .
There's another potential solution: read the rules like the designers do, and then everything just works.
It doesn't though. Booming blade "works"... unless you have a reach weapon, which gets nerfed for no good reason. Green-flame blade "works"... if you voluntarily give up using its secondary damage
Even going by what JC says they meant, it's still a kludgy, jury-rigged mess
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
@up2ng you asked for last words. The following text is my opinion and how I understand the rules.
Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade have a Range of Self (5-foot radius). They originate from the caster (the point of origin) because the Range includes the (5-foot radius) tag, so the caster is the point of origin for the spell, but not the target of the spell.
The Booming Blade spell continues to work with the War Caster feat. The spell targets one creature within 5 feet of you. The Green-Flame Blade spell continues to work with War Caster if you forgo targeting a second creature with the green fire (source)
As a summary, but we always need to read the spell entry to understand what exactly you are targeting (the Range parameter is not enough), we have this:
Spells with a Range of "Self" target the caster.
Spells with a Range of "Self" immediately followed by "(XYZ)" have the caster as the point of origin and don't necessarily! target the caster. EDIT: if it's easier for you to understand, read that parameter as "From Self (XYZ) ..."
EDIT (to add two notes): NOTE#1: a spell with "Range: Self (XYZ)" could be aimed to include yourself as a target if the spell creates an Area of Effect. NOTE#2: the spell entry can include the caster as a targeted creature and being affected by the spell.
[source] A range of self means the caster is the target, as in shield, or the point of origin, as in thunderwave (PH, 202).
[source] A note about D&D spells with a range of "Self (XYZ)": the parenthetical—which says "5-foot radius," "15-foot cone," or something else—means you are the spell's point of origin, but you aren't necessarily its target. You're creating an effect that originates in your space. #DnD
I don't think it is possible to have the description of Booming Blade with the same effect but that targets the melee target and making it eligible for war caster but ineligible for twin . . . the current design [ does ] this by cleverly using the interaction between spellcasting and melee combat.
I still feel like I'm missing something here about why we care whether or not the spell is Twinnable? Wasn't the original question about whether or not the spell works in combination with War Caster?
It's because of what JC said in the video shared here. He said the reason for the errata was because the old range was wrong. Going off the old range, Booming Blade can be twinned, but this was not intentional. By changing it to self (5-foot radius) it can no longer be twinned, but it can be used with war caster because it targets the creature provoking. At least, that's what JC said in the video. The reason should be clear then, I brought up the challenge to see if you could answer as to whether the intent of the spell stated by JC is possible given your dogmatic interpretation of the spell notations. Apparently it's not... The best you can come up with is changing it to a multi attack spell to prevent it from being twinned. So I think it's more plausible to interpret the spell the was JC does.
What does it mean by "targets to be affected by the spell’s magic"?
The very next sentence in the rule answers this question for us. It clarifies exactly what was meant in that first sentence:
A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect
So, all together, this rule reads as (paraphrasing): "You pick a target to be affected by the spell's magic . . . ok, what can I affect with the spell's magic? Answer: Creatures, Objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect."
That says it all doesn't it. You target either creatures, objects, or a point of origin; but regardless of what the target is... It is targeted "to be affected by the spell's magic." You even said it in your paraphrasing, thus confirming that targets are targets because the caster is trying to affect it by the magic of the spell. That's been my point... So given the caster isn't trying to affect himself with Booming Blade, the target can't be self.
Again, self parentheses is a special category. They don't confirm to typical spell norms.
There's actually nothing in the rules that says that this is a special category. It works just like all other notations that have a range and an area. The only interesting thing of note is that the list of valid targets for the "self (area)" spells are ever so slightly different than the list of valid targets for the "self" spells. For the non-AoE "self" notation, the target can only be the spellcaster. For the AoE "self (area)" notation, the target can be either the spellcaster or a point in space at the spellcaster's location -- the rest of the spell description will inform us about which of these valid choices are used.
JC said they're in a special category in the video. And if you look at the spell list, spells with that notation for range tend to have unique effects that are unlike the other notations for range. But at any rate, there's nothing that says that notation has to be an AOE, and the effect of booming blade doesn't seem to be an AOE. It is clearly single target at that attack target. "But radius is used to indicate sphere..." Sure, generally... But you know... Specific beats general means the effect can override the general norms of the notation. Based on the spell effect, Booming Blade is not an AOE. And with that, all your arguments depending on that go out the window.
So, the answer is no. The 5-foot-radius is not part of the Range.
I already stated how I don't think booming blade has an AOE. Sure... Fireball does have an AOE, and targets a point of origin and can affect creatures outside the range based on the rule you quoted. But Booming blade does not have an AOE. It has an effect that targets the attack target. The comparison doesn't work.
I disagree with you about the Catapult spell for the reasons that I've already stated. Pull up the Magic Stone spell and note the differences in spell design and proper usage of the term "target" for these types of spells. It doesn't matter if it's a longer duration and requires separate actions. Spells that actually target creatures are always written a certain way. They say things like "make a ranged spell attack against a creature within range". That is what it looks like when a spell targets a creature.
I am absolutely baffled that you would say that... How does it not matter that the throwing of the magic stones are part of a completely separate action? This difference means the targeting for the thrown magic stones aren't part of the spellcasting... which means this chapter 10 section doesn't even apply the the throwing of the magic stones... because the spell is already cast... but for catapult the targeting is clearly still part of the spellcasting, because the spell effect requires the object to be launched to the second target to resolve its effect. I just can't believe you would say that's irrelevant.
But if you disagree with me about catapult, what about chain lightning? Maybe you missed it, but I posted that as well.
You create a bolt of lightning that arcs toward a target of your choice that you can see within range. Three bolts then leap from that target to as many as three other targets, each of which must be within 30 feet of the first target. A target can be a creature or an object and can be targeted by only one of the bolts.
So clearly this targets something or someone in range, then potential target 3 additional targets out of range. You said catapult was in error, but this is quite more explicit. Also, claiming spells are in error gets weaker the more spells you apply it to.
Edit: I know you wanted last words, but I won't drag this out much longer. There were some things I just felt needed to be addressed.
My final word will be this: Spells with a Range: Self (5-foot radius) don't necessarily target you despite originating from you and you pick target (creature, object or point) within the indicated distance in parenthesis to be affected by it as told in their effect.
There's another potential solution: read the rules like the designers do, and then everything just works.
It doesn't though. Booming blade "works"... unless you have a reach weapon, which gets nerfed for no good reason. Green-flame blade "works"... if you voluntarily give up using its secondary damage
Fireball works if you just hit one creature, sure.
Casting a fireball that happens to have only one creature in its AoE is not the same as having two creatures you have the capability to damage, and letting one off the hook because Reasons
EDIT: although now that I think about it a bit, they aren't that different. Forcing you to position the fireball is such a way as to hit the retreating creature that triggered War Caster but not his buddy standing right next to him is also dumb
That is something that was noted a long time ago in this thread: War Caster only cares what is actually hit by the spell you use, whereas Twinned cares what is possible.
Even going by what JC says they meant, it's still a kludgy, jury-rigged mess
Only if you stick to the idea that "target" isn't used with one of the two meanings in context.
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Edit: Being capable of damaging two creatures and actually damaging two creatures are different.Green-Flame Blade offers that you "can cause flame to leap..." in its text. "Can" is often providing you an option whether or not to do something (when it isn't providing a choice between one of several options). Do you always have to select it? No. For example, wall of light doesn't require that you use your action to make spell attacks against creatures.
There's a massive difference between "optional use of an action to do damage" and "damage that requires no additional resources to inflict, but you are forced to decline to do it due to a strange rules interaction"
GFB says "can". That means as a player you have a choice. Except in this case, per JC, you don't
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You’ve got it backwards. The choice is what allows it to only hit one creature and therefore be viable for War Caster. If you didn’t have the choice, then the cantrip wouldn’t be an option for war caster, so you would be forced to make a normal melee attack due to a strange rules interaction.
Again, we’re talking about what the spell actually hits, not what it can possibly do. Yes, spells that can hit more than one creature are viable if and only if they actually do hit a single creature — whether that is by choice of placement or choice of options within the spell or any other choice you make in order to have a spell hit a single creature.
No, I don't have it backwards
Compare it to a higher-level eldritch blast. You have the choice of multiple targets, but if you use it with War Caster, you can still focus all the beams on the one target. You're still doing all the damage the spell says you can do
GFB says you can do splash damage if there's a viable secondary target. If you use it with War Caster, however, you simply lose that damage even if you would otherwise be entitled to it
That's a poorly written spell
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Unfortunately, my posts were addressed and I've been asked questions so I'm drawn back into this thread to answer them. I'd rather be done with this conversation
It's because of what JC said in the video shared here. He said the reason for the errata was because the old range was wrong. Going off the old range, Booming Blade can be twinned, but this was not intentional. By changing it to self (5-foot radius) it can no longer be twinned, but it can be used with war caster because it targets the creature provoking. At least, that's what JC said in the video.
Ok, this has been mentioned a few times, but it cannot be over-stressed strongly enough because it's really important for any proper Rules as Written discussion within these Forums . . .
It is absolute and utter folly to cling so strongly to the off-the-cuff remarks of a single developer in a live interview where he is answering questions on the fly without any books or notes in front of him and without his remarks going through all of the proper vetting and quality control that officially published material goes through before it is released. A comment from a developer is NOT the Rules as Written, which discusses only what is written in the rules.
This particular developer, Jeremy Crawford, is wrong about how targeting works for AoE spells. You can find several live comments and tweets from him through the years which demonstrates this.
Note that his comments regarding this particular question and about his general interpretation of how targeting works for AoE spells did not make the cut in the current officially published Sage Advice Compendium. Officially published material is incredibly careful and makes a great effort to avoid using the term "target" in this way with only a few examples in the entirety of the source materials slipping through the cracks. Plus, even the Sage Advice Compendium is not the Rules as Written. They are official rulings.
In the entire current officially published Sage Advice Compendium, the word "target" is used 83 times. In 82 of those cases, the usage of the word is consistent with the general rules. There was only one mistake -- in the answer given for the question about antipathy/sympathy the term is incorrectly used to describe affected creatures when the target of the spell is the thing or area that actually attracts or repels those creatures.
Even in the answer given for Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade (which was about the old versions of the spell anyway), the word "target" is only used once. In that case, the text is extremely careful to use the phrase "target of the weapon attack" instead of "target of the spell". There is no mention in that answer that relates to working with War Caster. It also makes a point of the fact that the spell does NOT involve a spell attack.
If only one of us is quoting the rules from the rulebooks and the rest are quoting tweets and live comments, then only one of us is discussing the Rules as Written.
That says it all doesn't it. You target either creatures, objects, or a point of origin; but regardless of what the target is... It is targeted "to be affected by the spell's magic." You even said it in your paraphrasing, thus confirming that targets are targets because the caster is trying to affect it by the magic of the spell. That's been my point... So given the caster isn't trying to affect himself with Booming Blade, the target can't be self.
Whatever point this is trying to make over and over, it's ineffective. Of course the spellcaster is trying to affect a target with his spell, that's a given. When the spellcaster casts an AoE spell, he is attempting to affect the area. To do that, by rule he targets "a point of origin for an area of effect".
When trying to affect a creature, he targets a creature.
When trying to affect an object, he targets an object.
When trying to affect an area, he targets "a point of origin for an area of effect".
JC said they're in a special category in the video. And if you look at the spell list, spells with that notation for range tend to have unique effects that are unlike the other notations for range. But at any rate, there's nothing that says that notation has to be an AOE, and the effect of booming blade doesn't seem to be an AOE.
No, they aren't unique effects. They work just like all other AoE spells. Jeremy Crawford is wrong about "self (area)" being a special category. The only thing special about it is that "self (area)" is an AoE spell and "self" is not. Yes, that notation does indicate an AoE spell. Always.
But you know... Specific beats general means the effect can override the general norms of the notation. Based on the spell effect, Booming Blade is not an AOE. And with that, all your arguments depending on that go out the window.
No, this isn't how specific beats general works. That rule is here:
Specific Beats General
This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
A rule or Feature doesn't beat itself. A specific rule would have to contradict a general rule for this concept to apply. When the specific rule says that something is an AoE and then follows immediately with text that doesn't fully beat you over the head with the AoE-ness of the spell, that doesn't override anything.
In this case, the size of the area is hard-coded into the text of the description and the effect which occurs within that area is explained. Just because you don't see it that way doesn't mean that that's not what is happening. The hard-coded mention of "within 5 feet" was specifically changed via errata. That portion of the text used to say "within range". This is an incredibly consistent concept about how spells are worded. Whenever the spell is talking about where to target the spell, it uses the phrase "within range". Whenever the text is describing the size of the Area of Effect, the number is hard-coded. There's no "rule" that says this. It's just a super incredibly consistent design model that is used in the writing of spells.
On the other hand, if you just wanted to write a non-AoE spell that attacks a nearby creature, you would use wording such as exists in Shocking Grasp: Range: Touch. "Lightning springs from your hand to deliver a shock to a creature you try to touch. Make a melee spell attack against the target. That spell directly targets a creature with a melee spell attack and is not an AoE spell.
I already stated how I don't think booming blade has an AOE. Sure... Fireball does have an AOE, and targets a point of origin and can affect creatures outside the range based on the rule you quoted. But Booming blade does not have an AOE. It has an effect that targets the attack target. The comparison doesn't work.
I disagree with all of this for all of the reasons already stated.
I disagree with you about the Catapult spell for the reasons that I've already stated. Pull up the Magic Stone spell and note the differences in spell design and proper usage of the term "target" for these types of spells. It doesn't matter if it's a longer duration and requires separate actions. Spells that actually target creatures are always written a certain way. They say things like "make a ranged spell attack against a creature within range". That is what it looks like when a spell targets a creature.
I am absolutely baffled that you would say that... How does it not matter that the throwing of the magic stones are part of a completely separate action? This difference means the targeting for the thrown magic stones aren't part of the spellcasting...
Again, the duration doesn't matter. The spell effect that is created by the casting of the spell is specifically and explicitly directly targeting creatures within a proper newly defined range. All of the common design elements of a spell that directly targets creatures exists in the description: "can make a ranged spell attack", "If thrown, it has a range of 60 feet.", "On a hit, the target takes bludgeoning damage". This is the target of a ranged spell attack. The spell begins by targeting an object, but it creates a spell effect that directly targets a creature. The spell effect doesn't even allow you to do anything else with the stone. If you did, they would just act like ordinary stones. The careful wording of this spell has already been posted side-by-side against the wording of the catapult spell which makes it clear that you are not directly targeting any creatures. If the distinction between the wording of the two spells isn't evident even after it's been explained, then I'm sort of out of options to help people understand the difference. There's really nothing more to say on that matter.
As for Chain Lightning, there is nothing wrong with that spell. The spell directly targets creatures and objects, and the term "target" is used in a manner that is consistent with the rules. The text of the spell explicitly states that some of these targets do not have to be within range of the spell -- that's a good example of the specific vs general mechanic at play.
Fireball works if you just hit one creature, sure. That is something that was noted a long time ago in this thread: War Caster only cares what is actually hit by the spell you use, whereas Twinned cares what is possible.
Fireball doesn't work with War Caster. It's an AoE spell. From the general rules for spellcasting in Chapter 10 of the PHB:
For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts.
Ok, time to wrap it up. Some folks have offered final thoughts about their interpretation of the spell and about the rules which support that interpretation. That's excellent. As promised, I won't jump in on those. Your interpretations are what they are at this point. I agree that this thread has run its course.
Okay using udps interpretation: Fireball is unique in that unlike a lot of spells it really does also target a point in space because that point is relevant to the effect at hand. The area isn't instantly suffused with fire, and you're now throwing a giant fireball at them. There's an explosion from a specific point as described by the text of the spell, that, if you were in area the but behind something that had corners outside of the area (because fireball spreads around corners), you'd benefit from cover. Other aoe spells, like Transmute Stone, target areas, not a point, so the "Range/Area" section doesn't uniquely determine whether it targets a point that defines an area, an area itself, or something in that area: you must also read the text. Booming Blade clearly targets one creature in that area, and not the point defining the area, or the area itself.
The point was that even if you assume that the Fireball spell targets the affected creatures, it also targets a point in space -- that quote comes straight out of Chapter 10. If the spell targets one creature AND a point in space then it is disqualified from eligibility for War Caster since that Feat requires that the spell target only that creature (and nothing else).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1) Don't make it a spell at all. Make it an optional feature available to gish subclasses, a la Divine Smite
2) Give it a range of straight Self and a duration of, say, 8 hours (like mage armor and other self-buffs), and while it's active, you can make one melee attack per turn with the add-ons
One of the fundamental problems with booming blade is that the rules distinguish between the Attack action and the Cast a Spell action, but they tried to make a spell that does both at the same time
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
True, but that's my point. If you want to use War Caster, you should be using it with something that would normally require the Cast a Spell action
If you want to make a melee attack (with whatever stacked on top of it), use a normal opportunity attack
There's no good reason to contort the rules into pretzels trying to have it both ways
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I mean, Crawford admitted in that video earlier in the thread that booming blade/green-flame blade were an experiment
It's OK to label them a failed experiment
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
This entirely misses the point of the challenge I made. The argument here is that booming blade does not work with war caster, because it does not target the creature provoking. The reason given is that self is included in the range, therefore the spell must target self. So the point of the challenge is... how can this range block be changed such that it works with War Caster but doesn't with twin while still keeping the same effect. Maybe you can change the effect for this, but not substantially. Your revision must still make a melee attack against a creature within five feet and target that creature, with this spell and have all the same effects applied to that target.
Why am I making the challenge? Because it is my position, as well as many others here, that if the spell has you do a melee attack to target the attack target, and have a point of origin at self which is not targeted, it would be written exactly as it is. If you disagree, then how would it be written to accomplish this intent? Because I believe it does accomplish this as it is written.
I also wanted to make clear, there is an error in my response post it starts quotes with "Why do we." This is in error, but I'm not editing it.
And my point has been that trying to write it in such a way that it works with War Caster is a fool's errand, and the attempts to do so by folks at WotC -- who actually get paid to do that sort of thing -- resulted in a total clusterf*** of a spell. So why would I want to make a different clusterf*** for free?
I gave you two potential solutions to the problem -- which is that booming blade is poorly and confusingly written, resulting in threads like this
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
That's fine. You can have that opinion. I'm not going to argue with it.
So since the catapult spell is being disputed, I thought I'd throw a similar example to that spell…
It's clear on this description that you target one creature within range, then 3 creatures in a different range. The range is from the initial target, thus the other targets can be outside the 150ft range of the spell. It explicitly calls them targets in the same sense as the initial target since it uses the term “other targets.” Is this also erroneous? Or are you seeing a pattern?
Ok, there's obviously been some sort of misunderstanding as I honestly have no idea what this is referring to. Let me just apologize for whatever it was so that we can get back on-topic.
I still feel like I'm missing something here about why we care whether or not the spell is Twinnable? Wasn't the original question about whether or not the spell works in combination with War Caster?
But regardless, the problem with "using the interaction between spellcasting and melee combat" is that the War Caster Feat has specific requirements -- you need to cast the spell at the provoking creature and the spell must target only that creature. This "interaction" just doesn't meet these requirements. The spell would have to say something like "you make a melee spell attack against a creature within range" and the range would have to make sense for that text. That is the sort of spell that targets a creature and that is cast at a creature. The current iteration of the Booming Blade spell is not designed that way. The old version of the spell does qualify for War Caster though -- so it's useful to note the differences between those two versions of the spell.
The very next sentence in the rule answers this question for us. It clarifies exactly what was meant in that first sentence:
So, all together, this rule reads as (paraphrasing): "You pick a target to be affected by the spell's magic . . . ok, what can I affect with the spell's magic? Answer: Creatures, Objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect."
Ok, let's try it like this. I'll start with an example:
The Fireball spell has a range of 150 feet and it has an area that is a 20-foot-radius sphere. The range tells you how far away I can put my Fireball. I can only put the center of the sphere 150 feet away from me. However, if I am careful, I can make sure that a creature that is standing 165 feet away from me is affected by the explosion created by my Fireball. Even though that creature is outside of the range, the game design intention is that I can still affect that creature. That's why these two rules work together for AoE spells:
and
So, the answer is no. The 5-foot-radius is not part of the Range. That determines the size and shape of the area of effect that is created by casting the spell within range. Even though the hardcopy books just list the parameter as "Range" and often leave out the information about the AoE, the up-to-date online entries use the notation of Range/Area or Range (Area), meaning that the Range of the spell is the first number, and the part that is inside the parentheses is the information about the area of effect that is created when you cast the spell within range.
When a spell has the notation "Self (5-foot-radius)" that means that the Range for the spell is "self", and the eligible targets are all within that Range. The center of the sphere is created at the target within range and then expands outwards into a 5-foot-radius sphere.
There's actually nothing in the rules that says that this is a special category. It works just like all other notations that have a range and an area. The only interesting thing of note is that the list of valid targets for the "self (area)" spells are ever so slightly different than the list of valid targets for the "self" spells. For the non-AoE "self" notation, the target can only be the spellcaster. For the AoE "self (area)" notation, the target can be either the spellcaster or a point in space at the spellcaster's location -- the rest of the spell description will inform us about which of these valid choices are used.
There aren't two other options for AoE spells though. "For an area of effect . . . a point of origin". Perhaps confusingly, the point of origin CAN be an actual creature -- but usually it's a point in space. Literally the area of effect cannot come into existence unless you put it somewhere. It's really the only thing that those spells actually do. They create the area of effect. The rest of the text describes what that area of effect is and how it might interact with creatures and objects within its space.
The other two options, creatures and objects are only for non-AoE spells. Also, conversely, those are the only two options for non-AoE spells. You don't target a point of origin if there will be no AoE created there.
Also, further evidence is that this is the only way that the two other rules that I quoted above actually make any sense. That the target has to be in range, but the AoE can extend beyond the range. None of that actually works correctly unless the targeting system is the way I've been describing it.
I disagree with you about the Catapult spell for the reasons that I've already stated. Pull up the Magic Stone spell and note the differences in spell design and proper usage of the term "target" for these types of spells. It doesn't matter if it's a longer duration and requires separate actions. Spells that actually target creatures are always written a certain way. They say things like "make a ranged spell attack against a creature within range". That is what it looks like when a spell targets a creature.
Not in the general rules for spellcasting they don't.
Not if that person has also read the general rules for spellcasting from Chapter 10 of the PHB and understands what "Range (5-foot-radius)" means.
. . .
Still nobody has really explained to me why we are talking about whether or not the spell is Twinnable. Who cares? That wasn't the question in the OP. But here we go again I guess . . .
This is wrong. All you have to do is compare the requirements of working with War Caster with the requirements for being a Twinnable spell. I have already quoted and posted these side by side. The only possible way for any spell to work with War Caster but not be Twinnable is if the spell directly targets the creature but could be capable of targeting more than one. That's it. There exist no shenanigans with creating a special range that works for this purpose at all.
OOOOH!! Ok, I missed this somewhere along the way that's why I've been so confused. Is this really why we're talking about Twinned Spell? Because a designer made a comment that they wanted the spell to work with War Caster but not Twinned Spell? My apologies.
If this was the intent, then they failed. All they had to do was read the descriptions for war caster and for twinned spell. The only difference is that one must target only one creature and the other must target only one creature AND be capable of only targeting one creature. That's it.
In terms of only making sure that Booming Blade is not Twinnable, they did come up with a pretty decent solution for that.
The problem with that is that the designers are often wrong about what is in the rules.
--------------------
I'll tell you what. I feel like I've given all of the necessary information for the original question of this thread several times. I'm going to attempt to back out of the conversation now since it seems like no one is interested in the information that I keep presenting to the group. I'll give you all the last word and maybe we can end this thread -- but that only works if no one quotes my text and tells me that I'm wrong and if no one directly asks me questions that they expect me to answer. I would continue to respond to these. But if you want to just give your interpretation one more time I won't jump in on that. Let's see how that goes . . .
It doesn't though. Booming blade "works"... unless you have a reach weapon, which gets nerfed for no good reason. Green-flame blade "works"... if you voluntarily give up using its secondary damage
Even going by what JC says they meant, it's still a kludgy, jury-rigged mess
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
@up2ng you asked for last words. The following text is my opinion and how I understand the rules.
As a summary, but we always need to read the spell entry to understand what exactly you are targeting (the Range parameter is not enough), we have this:
A tip for everyone: watch the video posted by @Plaguescarred. Also, the answers provided by him in this thread are the correct ones (at least for me)
And finally, a couple of tweets from the Dev:
It's because of what JC said in the video shared here. He said the reason for the errata was because the old range was wrong. Going off the old range, Booming Blade can be twinned, but this was not intentional. By changing it to self (5-foot radius) it can no longer be twinned, but it can be used with war caster because it targets the creature provoking. At least, that's what JC said in the video. The reason should be clear then, I brought up the challenge to see if you could answer as to whether the intent of the spell stated by JC is possible given your dogmatic interpretation of the spell notations. Apparently it's not... The best you can come up with is changing it to a multi attack spell to prevent it from being twinned. So I think it's more plausible to interpret the spell the was JC does.
That says it all doesn't it. You target either creatures, objects, or a point of origin; but regardless of what the target is... It is targeted "to be affected by the spell's magic." You even said it in your paraphrasing, thus confirming that targets are targets because the caster is trying to affect it by the magic of the spell. That's been my point... So given the caster isn't trying to affect himself with Booming Blade, the target can't be self.
JC said they're in a special category in the video. And if you look at the spell list, spells with that notation for range tend to have unique effects that are unlike the other notations for range. But at any rate, there's nothing that says that notation has to be an AOE, and the effect of booming blade doesn't seem to be an AOE. It is clearly single target at that attack target. "But radius is used to indicate sphere..." Sure, generally... But you know... Specific beats general means the effect can override the general norms of the notation. Based on the spell effect, Booming Blade is not an AOE. And with that, all your arguments depending on that go out the window.
I already stated how I don't think booming blade has an AOE. Sure... Fireball does have an AOE, and targets a point of origin and can affect creatures outside the range based on the rule you quoted. But Booming blade does not have an AOE. It has an effect that targets the attack target. The comparison doesn't work.
I am absolutely baffled that you would say that... How does it not matter that the throwing of the magic stones are part of a completely separate action? This difference means the targeting for the thrown magic stones aren't part of the spellcasting... which means this chapter 10 section doesn't even apply the the throwing of the magic stones... because the spell is already cast... but for catapult the targeting is clearly still part of the spellcasting, because the spell effect requires the object to be launched to the second target to resolve its effect. I just can't believe you would say that's irrelevant.
But if you disagree with me about catapult, what about chain lightning? Maybe you missed it, but I posted that as well.
So clearly this targets something or someone in range, then potential target 3 additional targets out of range. You said catapult was in error, but this is quite more explicit. Also, claiming spells are in error gets weaker the more spells you apply it to.
Edit: I know you wanted last words, but I won't drag this out much longer. There were some things I just felt needed to be addressed.
My final word will be this: Spells with a Range: Self (5-foot radius) don't necessarily target you despite originating from you and you pick target (creature, object or point) within the indicated distance in parenthesis to be affected by it as told in their effect.
Casting a fireball that happens to have only one creature in its AoE is not the same as having two creatures you have the capability to damage, and letting one off the hook because Reasons
EDIT: although now that I think about it a bit, they aren't that different. Forcing you to position the fireball is such a way as to hit the retreating creature that triggered War Caster but not his buddy standing right next to him is also dumb
You seem to be confusing me with up2ng
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There's a massive difference between "optional use of an action to do damage" and "damage that requires no additional resources to inflict, but you are forced to decline to do it due to a strange rules interaction"
GFB says "can". That means as a player you have a choice. Except in this case, per JC, you don't
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
No, I don't have it backwards
Compare it to a higher-level eldritch blast. You have the choice of multiple targets, but if you use it with War Caster, you can still focus all the beams on the one target. You're still doing all the damage the spell says you can do
GFB says you can do splash damage if there's a viable secondary target. If you use it with War Caster, however, you simply lose that damage even if you would otherwise be entitled to it
That's a poorly written spell
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Unfortunately, my posts were addressed and I've been asked questions so I'm drawn back into this thread to answer them. I'd rather be done with this conversation
Ok, this has been mentioned a few times, but it cannot be over-stressed strongly enough because it's really important for any proper Rules as Written discussion within these Forums . . .
It is absolute and utter folly to cling so strongly to the off-the-cuff remarks of a single developer in a live interview where he is answering questions on the fly without any books or notes in front of him and without his remarks going through all of the proper vetting and quality control that officially published material goes through before it is released. A comment from a developer is NOT the Rules as Written, which discusses only what is written in the rules.
This particular developer, Jeremy Crawford, is wrong about how targeting works for AoE spells. You can find several live comments and tweets from him through the years which demonstrates this.
Note that his comments regarding this particular question and about his general interpretation of how targeting works for AoE spells did not make the cut in the current officially published Sage Advice Compendium. Officially published material is incredibly careful and makes a great effort to avoid using the term "target" in this way with only a few examples in the entirety of the source materials slipping through the cracks. Plus, even the Sage Advice Compendium is not the Rules as Written. They are official rulings.
In the entire current officially published Sage Advice Compendium, the word "target" is used 83 times. In 82 of those cases, the usage of the word is consistent with the general rules. There was only one mistake -- in the answer given for the question about antipathy/sympathy the term is incorrectly used to describe affected creatures when the target of the spell is the thing or area that actually attracts or repels those creatures.
Even in the answer given for Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade (which was about the old versions of the spell anyway), the word "target" is only used once. In that case, the text is extremely careful to use the phrase "target of the weapon attack" instead of "target of the spell". There is no mention in that answer that relates to working with War Caster. It also makes a point of the fact that the spell does NOT involve a spell attack.
If only one of us is quoting the rules from the rulebooks and the rest are quoting tweets and live comments, then only one of us is discussing the Rules as Written.
Whatever point this is trying to make over and over, it's ineffective. Of course the spellcaster is trying to affect a target with his spell, that's a given. When the spellcaster casts an AoE spell, he is attempting to affect the area. To do that, by rule he targets "a point of origin for an area of effect".
When trying to affect a creature, he targets a creature.
When trying to affect an object, he targets an object.
When trying to affect an area, he targets "a point of origin for an area of effect".
No, they aren't unique effects. They work just like all other AoE spells. Jeremy Crawford is wrong about "self (area)" being a special category. The only thing special about it is that "self (area)" is an AoE spell and "self" is not. Yes, that notation does indicate an AoE spell. Always.
No, this isn't how specific beats general works. That rule is here:
A rule or Feature doesn't beat itself. A specific rule would have to contradict a general rule for this concept to apply. When the specific rule says that something is an AoE and then follows immediately with text that doesn't fully beat you over the head with the AoE-ness of the spell, that doesn't override anything.
In this case, the size of the area is hard-coded into the text of the description and the effect which occurs within that area is explained. Just because you don't see it that way doesn't mean that that's not what is happening. The hard-coded mention of "within 5 feet" was specifically changed via errata. That portion of the text used to say "within range". This is an incredibly consistent concept about how spells are worded. Whenever the spell is talking about where to target the spell, it uses the phrase "within range". Whenever the text is describing the size of the Area of Effect, the number is hard-coded. There's no "rule" that says this. It's just a super incredibly consistent design model that is used in the writing of spells.
On the other hand, if you just wanted to write a non-AoE spell that attacks a nearby creature, you would use wording such as exists in Shocking Grasp: Range: Touch. "Lightning springs from your hand to deliver a shock to a creature you try to touch. Make a melee spell attack against the target. That spell directly targets a creature with a melee spell attack and is not an AoE spell.
I disagree with all of this for all of the reasons already stated.
Again, the duration doesn't matter. The spell effect that is created by the casting of the spell is specifically and explicitly directly targeting creatures within a proper newly defined range. All of the common design elements of a spell that directly targets creatures exists in the description: "can make a ranged spell attack", "If thrown, it has a range of 60 feet.", "On a hit, the target takes bludgeoning damage". This is the target of a ranged spell attack. The spell begins by targeting an object, but it creates a spell effect that directly targets a creature. The spell effect doesn't even allow you to do anything else with the stone. If you did, they would just act like ordinary stones. The careful wording of this spell has already been posted side-by-side against the wording of the catapult spell which makes it clear that you are not directly targeting any creatures. If the distinction between the wording of the two spells isn't evident even after it's been explained, then I'm sort of out of options to help people understand the difference. There's really nothing more to say on that matter.
As for Chain Lightning, there is nothing wrong with that spell. The spell directly targets creatures and objects, and the term "target" is used in a manner that is consistent with the rules. The text of the spell explicitly states that some of these targets do not have to be within range of the spell -- that's a good example of the specific vs general mechanic at play.
Fireball doesn't work with War Caster. It's an AoE spell. From the general rules for spellcasting in Chapter 10 of the PHB:
Ok, time to wrap it up. Some folks have offered final thoughts about their interpretation of the spell and about the rules which support that interpretation. That's excellent. As promised, I won't jump in on those. Your interpretations are what they are at this point. I agree that this thread has run its course.
Okay using udps interpretation: Fireball is unique in that unlike a lot of spells it really does also target a point in space because that point is relevant to the effect at hand. The area isn't instantly suffused with fire, and you're now throwing a giant fireball at them. There's an explosion from a specific point as described by the text of the spell, that, if you were in area the but behind something that had corners outside of the area (because fireball spreads around corners), you'd benefit from cover. Other aoe spells, like Transmute Stone, target areas, not a point, so the "Range/Area" section doesn't uniquely determine whether it targets a point that defines an area, an area itself, or something in that area: you must also read the text. Booming Blade clearly targets one creature in that area, and not the point defining the area, or the area itself.
Not sure if that was directed my way or not but these are the relevant rules:
Warcaster:
Fireball:
The point was that even if you assume that the Fireball spell targets the affected creatures, it also targets a point in space -- that quote comes straight out of Chapter 10. If the spell targets one creature AND a point in space then it is disqualified from eligibility for War Caster since that Feat requires that the spell target only that creature (and nothing else).