The point in the argument I've been presenting here was simple. Spells are meant to affect the target with the spell's magic, booming blade does not mean to affect the caster with the spell's magic, therefore the caster cannot be the target of booming blade. Saying "Of course the spellcaster is trying to affect a target with his spell, that's a given." concedes the argument effectively.
This is the argument I relied on since JC is not trusted as a source apparently. So I argued from the PHB, and this argument is the result.
We all agree that the point of origin for booming blade is on self, but I don't think the point of origin is the spell target. This gets into "the range is self" stuff, but clearly 5 feet are also in the range... leaving the possibility of targets in that range as well. No one can deny booming blade is quite unique with its mechanics, so it shouldn't be a surprise that it has unique targeting mechanics.
I would have liked to address the specific beats general thing directly, but I'll generally address it. How the range notation is interpreted is a general rule and how the spell worked based off the effect is a specific one. The argument that a rule cannot beat itself is flawed because you’re grouping multiple rules together. The general rule is how range works, and the specific rule is the spell effect. Those can conflict, thus invoking the specific beats general rule.
I tried to use catapult as an example of this principle, but the counter was that the wording of the spell is in error. The argument that it ought to have been like magic stone is absurd. That spell is creating an entirely distinct action for you to take. There are no general rules to govern that action so the spell needs to define it. It has to be explicit, and if anything it's not explicit enough. Since throwing it constitutes a ranged spell attack, people argue about whether it's compatible with multiattack. I would say yes, because you're not casting a spell by throwing it.
But this is all moot since apparently chain lightning is accepted as an exceptional spell in the way I presented catapult. Chain lightning, like catapult, has a two step targeting ability. You target one creature or object in range, then target 3 different creatures or objects in a range specified from the initial target. This could not be simply included in the range block, because those ranges are always with respect to the caster, but the second step targets are within a range of the first target. The point being that specific rules for spell effects can overrule the general notations of the same spell. I would argue booming blade is a example of this because it has a unique feature of targeting by attacking, which is difficult to define with standard notation.
This argument aside, I created this thread to present the spell combo I came up with. I was essentially inviting scrutiny to see if it would hold up or if someone would show it doesn't work. One of the criticisms I received before was that dissonant whispers does not provoke because it forces them to move. It was easy to disprove this since the target clearly uses their reaction to move. But this made me want to put it to more scrutiny to identify more problems, and I thank everyone who helped me do this. Even if we disagree in the end, you all still helped me and I thank you.
And regardless of your position, I think we all agree at least that using dissonant whispers in melee range to provoke opportunity itself is good, even without booming blade.
Just chiming back in regarding comments that referenced my posts so I can clear up any misunderstandings, misinterpretations and incorrect conclusions.
Spells are meant to affect the target with the spell's magic, booming blade does not mean to affect the caster with the spell's magic, therefore the caster cannot be the target of booming blade. Saying "Of course the spellcaster is trying to affect a target with his spell, that's a given." concedes the argument effectively.
It looks like there's been a misunderstanding here. The rule for targets begins with a premise that a spellcaster is trying to affect something with magic. It then gives 3 options for what can be targeted in order to make that happen which are meant to correspond with the premise of what is being affected.
So, if you want to affect a creature, you target the creature.
If you want to affect an object, you target an object.
If you want to affect an area, you target a point of origin for an area of effect.
It's really that simple.
Since Booming Blade is an AoE spell with a Range of "self", not only can the spellcaster's location be the target of the spell but it must be the target of the spell.
We all agree that the point of origin for booming blade is on self, but I don't think the point of origin is the spell target.
Ok, for everyone who is still making statements like this, I would appreciate it if you would attempt to answer this question with quotes from the rules to help me understand your idea:
How exactly do you think that an Area of Effect materializes at exactly the location that you are hoping for? Why doesn't the Area of Effect appear in a random place? For that matter, how do you expect the Area of Effect to appear at all? If you are trying to affect an area with magic by filling that space up with an Area of Effect, but you aren't targeting the point of origin -- what exactly is the mechanic that makes this happen? As a Bonus Question: What do you think an Area of Effect spell actually does when you cast it?
clearly 5 feet are also in the range... leaving the possibility of targets in that range as well.
I'm not sure if this point was in response to one of my posts or not but I'll clear this up anyway just in case. This statement is just 100% false and that has been noted probably 30 times now. The Range of Booming Blade is self, and targets must be within Range.
I tried to use catapult as an example of this principle, but the counter was that the wording of the spell is in error. The argument that it ought to have been like magic stone is absurd. That spell is creating an entirely distinct action for you to take. There are no general rules to govern that action so the spell needs to define it. It has to be explicit, and if anything it's not explicit enough. Since throwing it constitutes a ranged spell attack, people argue about whether it's compatible with multiattack. I would say yes, because you're not casting a spell by throwing it.
Catapult is not a good example of specific vs general for the Range rule. A better example of this was Chain Lightning.
No one ever said that the Catapult spell ought to have been like Magic Stone. Magic Stone was an example of a spell that targets one thing and then the spell effect directly targets something else. Chain Lightning is an example of that also. Catapult is not.
When you make a ranged spell attack with Magic Stone, you are not taking the Attack Action so features like Extra Attack (which is what I assume you mean by multiattack) do not apply. Instead of taking the Attack Action, you are taking an action that is defined within the effect of a spell. If you don't do this, you don't get the benefits of the spell, you'd just be throwing an ordinary stone.
In the case of Chain Lightning, the entry listed for the Range of the spell is not completely ignored or overwritten. It is used during the initial targeting process of the casting of the spell. The specific vs general exception comes from the fact that the additional targets of the spell effect (after the spell has already been cast) do not use that Range, they explicitly use different parameters -- mostly because the source of those 3 additional bolts of lightning do not come from the spellcaster or the actual casting of the spell, they come from the initial target, so the initial Range cannot be used. The effect of these additional bolts are clearly directly targeting a creature or object.
I'm sure that there might be exceptions, but in general, you can tell if a spell or ongoing spell effect directly targets a creature if it: 1) Is not an AoE spell AND it either . . . 2A) involves making a spell attack OR . . . 2B) describes an effect being directed at or to or towards a creature and that creature gets a saving throw.
Notice that Catapult does not meet the above design concept that is almost universally used in all spell descriptions, but Magic Stone and Chain Lightning do.
Hopefully this helps to clarify some of my earlier comments.
I am not one of the authors of official Dungeons and Dragons 5e content, so I did not write any of the rules. You can make assumptions about whatever you want I guess -- assumptions don't really mean anything. The design patterns of how spells for the game are written can be observed simply by reading the published materials. This wasn't a quote of a rule, it was an observation about how spells are written.
Speaking of quoting a rule, as a point of fact, out of the 34 posts or so that you've contributed to this thread you have quoted a rule exactly twice. So, whatever point you think you keep making about what the rules really say has become ineffective. I would need to actually see something from the Rules as Written that aligns with your ideas in order to be convinced of your interpretation of the Rules as Written.
Apparently, I still have some unresolved criticisms. Let's address them.
The primary criticism of my argument is that Booming Blade is an AoE spell, and therefore it must target the point of origin, which is at self because the range is self. This criticism places greater importance on the interpretation of AoE rules than on the need for the spell to affect the target with its magic, as explicitly stated under targeting rules. But what's the support for the point of origin always being the target? It’s based on implications from AoE rules, not on any explicit rule.
To clarify, let's delve into the range of spells, specifically those with a range of self.
The PHB states:
Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.
Case closed, right? Range of self targets self… Or does it? Let’s continue:
Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell’s effect must be you.
So, the range of self means the target is self… or alternatively, the point of origin is self. But isn’t the point of origin always a target? That’s the argument, but if they were effectively the same, why would the rules need to list alternative scenarios for spells with a range of self? Unless they aren’t the same…
Jeremy Crawford clarifies this:
A range of self means the caster is the target, as in shield, or the point of origin, as in thunderwave (PH, 202).
He clearly differentiates between these two scenarios, which aligns with why the rules list them separately despite having the same range specification. Booming Blade falls under the latter category, where the caster is the point of origin but not the target. The target is the creature attacked, as per the spell description:
The target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn.
Therefore, according to the rules, the range of self makes the caster the point of origin, but the detailed description of Booming Blade specifies that the attacked creature is the target.
This addresses the core issue, so what's remaining is Catapult. I honestly don't understand why you think Catapult is a bad example but Chain Lightning is a good one. As I read through your description of everything good about Chain Lightning, I couldn't help but think at every point, “You mean like Catapult?” It initially targets something in range, like Catapult. It then specifies additional targets with a different specified range, like Catapult. They use different range parameters because you are not the source of the attacks, like Catapult. The only thing Chain Lightning has that Catapult lacks is phrasing like “target the other targets.” It's otherwise identical.
I also wonder what exactly you think happens practically with the Catapult spell. “I'm going to target this object and launch it in… a completely random direction… maybe it will hit something!” Or do you think you can actually aim it at a target?
A fireball that hits only one creature doesn’t target any other creature.
I will say that in a prior thread about a similar topic, someone suggested the "invisible pixie protocol" or something along those lines -- if the spell you're casting would also hit a gaggle of invisible pixies swarming around your main target, then you can't treat the spell as having a single target
I'm not sure I fully buy into it, but using that guideline would eliminate the chance of metagaming where you attempt to cast fireball with War Caster against one target and your DM says, "Err, no, you can't, but I can't tell you why"
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)
Do you have the same problem when other game elements give you special uses of spells with particular requirements on them?
You'll have to actually cite another example of a player being forced to nerf their own spell in order to use it in a specific situation for me to really say
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)
This criticism places greater importance on the interpretation of AoE rules than on the need for the spell to affect the target with its magic
Why do you think there's a conflict here? If you are attempting to affect an area with magic then you target the origin point for an area of effect. You succeed in affecting the area with magic. If a creature happens to be in that area, it might be affected depending on what the spell says about the effect of the Area of Effect that's been created by the spell.
But what's the support for the point of origin always being the target?
Besides the fact that it's the only option given "for an area of effect" in the rules for Targets . . . it also boils down to the questions in my previous post that I hoped some people would attempt to answer. If you don't target the point of origin, how exactly do you expect the Area of Effect to materialize exactly where you want it to or even to materialize at all? I'll answer my own Bonus Question here as well as I feel like it's helpful at this point: The one and only thing that casting an Area of Effect spell actually does is to create an Area of Effect. That's it. Whatever happens after it's created is not related to the casting of the spell.
Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.
Case closed, right? Range of self targets self… Or does it? Let’s continue:
Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell’s effect must be you.
So, the range of self means the target is self… or alternatively, the point of origin is self. But isn’t the point of origin always a target? That’s the argument, but if they were effectively the same, why would the rules need to list alternative scenarios for spells with a range of self? Unless they aren’t the same…
Ok, this is good, it feels like we're getting somewhere here. Let me explain this.
In the first bit that you quoted which used Shield as an example, they are NOT talking about AoE spells. Spells like shield directly target a creature, so there is no point of origin. In that case, when the Range is "self" then the target MUST be the spellcaster since it's just a spell that targets a creature and the target must be within range.
In your second rule that you quoted, they are referring to an AoE spell that explicitly says in its text that the Cone originates from you. The example for this is Burning Hands. In those spells, there is a point of origin, which is the spellcaster himself in this case because the spell says so. Range for Burning Hands is "self (15-foot-Cone)".
The distinction here is that the AoE spell doesn't have to be pouring straight out of the spellcaster's body if the text doesn't say so. In the case of Booming Blade, for example, the point of origin is not the spellcaster himself, it's the spellcaster's location. The AoE is created by the brandishing of a weapon that the spellcaster is holding and it radiates outwards from that point in space (obviously this detail is not in the text -- it's inferred by the spell parameters) -- which, speaking in terms of 5-foot grid squares, the origin is located at the same grid square that the spellcaster is standing on. In this way, it's different from your first rule that used Shield as an example because this option is not possible for Shield since Shield is not a spell that has a point of origin so it cannot target a point in space.
JC just butchered this explanation, that's all. In his mind he knew that there was something slightly different about "self (area)" spells vs "self" spells and that it involved the fact that there is a minor choice about what exactly the target is . . . but then he seemingly couldn't remember the details and started talking about targeting affected creatures, which is wrong. He is speaking off the cuff in a live interview with no books in front of him, these things happen.
Honestly, the Catapult thing just isn't very important. The discussion above is much more pertinent for understanding how the Booming Blade spell works.
But what's the support for the point of origin always being the target?
Besides the fact that it's the only option given "for an area of effect" in the rules for Targets . . . it also boils down to the questions in my previous post that I hoped some people would attempt to answer. If you don't target the point of origin, how exactly do you expect the Area of Effect to materialize exactly where you want it to or even to materialize at all?
There is nothing that says you need to target the point of origin for an AoE. Take slow, for example:
You alter time around up to six creatures of your choice in a 40-foot cube within range. Each target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be affected by this spell for the duration.
The AoE is a 40-foot cube. Where is the point of origin? That’s in the AoE rules:
You select a cube’s point of origin, which lies anywhere on a face of the cubic effect. The cube’s size is expressed as the length of each side.
So, the point of origin is basically a point of your choosing on the perimeter of the AoE. But what were the targets again?
You alter time around up to six creatures of your choice in a 40-foot cube within range. Each target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be affected by this spell for the duration.
Clearly, the six creatures are the targets; it couldn’t be any more clear. It says it right there. So how can you make an AoE without targeting the point of origin? By targeting the creatures within the AoE. If you can do it with slow, why not other AoE spells?
AoE spells create an effect within a specified area. The point of origin determines where this effect starts, but it doesn't necessarily need to be the target. The spell’s description specifies the targets, which can be creatures, objects, or points within the AoE.
Another thing, the point of origin concept isn't limited to AoE spells. It applies to all spells. For instance, Magic Missile originates from the caster and hits targets within range. There's nothing particularly special about the point of origin such that it must be a target of the spell. It is simply "a location from which the spell’s energy erupts."
Essentially your argument against my 'distinct scenarios' point is that they have an immaterial difference which is why they're listed separate. This doesn't seem plausible. If that were the case, it should say this:
Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells can only affect you or the point of origin for an area of effect, which may also be you. These spells have a range of self, indicating that either you or a point of origin associated with you is the target.
This compared to what's actually in there:
Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.
Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell’s effect must be you (see “Areas of Effect” later in the this chapter).
It seems quite more obvious that they are separated as distinct examples because they are distinct in what is targeted.
This criticism The AoE is created by the brandishing of a weapon that the spellcaster is holding and it radiates outwards from that point in space (obviously this detail is not in the text -- it's inferred by the spell parameters) -- which, speaking in terms of 5-foot grid squares, the origin is located at the same grid square that the spellcaster is standing on. In this way, it's different from your first rule that used Shield as an example because this option is not possible for Shield since Shield is not a spell that has a point of origin so it cannot target a point in space.
Your interpretation that the AoE of Booming Blade is created by the brandishing of a weapon and radiates outwards from that point in space, inferring this detail from the spell parameters, is not supported by the actual text of the spell. The spell description is clear and explicit about what is targeted and what is affected:
The target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn.
The spell specifically designates the target of the melee attack as the one who becomes sheathed in booming energy. There is no mention of an AoE radiating outwards from the weapon or the caster. In fact, this detail about the AoE and its supposed point of origin being inferred from the spell parameters is an extrapolation that is not grounded in the spell's actual description.
Oh, sorry my mistake. I didn't mention this wasn't JC from the Video... This is JC from Twitter or X. He was not doing this on the fly, which is why he included a page reference for the rule.
I've already said my final words, but since I'm still subscribed to this thread, I've been reading the latest posts. I would like to add a tweet from the Dev related to the debate that I forgot to include in my previous message.
@DaveWil33 So just to clarify in text what I gather from the little bit of the podcast I listened to the PoO of a Self AoE isn't considered a target? So Burning Hands and Lightning Bolt work with War Caster and Shield Master? Assuming only a single target in the area itself
@JeremyECrawford That's correct! Spells with a range of "Self (XYZ)" are in a special category, where each spell defines how its targeting works. Also, in the range rules (PH, p. 202, 3rd paragraph), the caster is intentionally not called the target of such spells.
Regarding Slow, that's one of about a half dozen spells that uses Target incorrectly. The spell targets a point of origin for an AoE that "alters time around" creatures. The affected creatures must be selected because there could be more than 6 of them and the AoE is not powerful enough to affect them all. Similar to Booming Blade.
Your mention of Magic Missile misunderstands the concept. The source of the spellcasting and the point of origin for an Area of Effect are two different things. Range is the max distance from the source to the Target. The point of origin is the Target, even when it's self. The origin tells you where the AoE materializes which can happen anywhere within range. Only AoE spells have a point of origin.
Your rule example for distinct scenarios misses the point of that rule. The first paragraph is just explaining the difference between range of touch and range of self -- those are not AoE spells, they don't have a point of origin.
Your confusion with Booming Blade (one of them anyway) is that you are confusing the Target of a non-magical attack mentioned as part of the Area's effect with the Target of the actual spell. This is a perfectly fine usage of Target, it's just that this is the Target of an attack, not the target of the spell.
Do you have the same problem when other game elements give you special uses of spells with particular requirements on them?
You'll have to actually cite another example of a player being forced to nerf their own spell in order to use it in a specific situation for me to really say
They're all over the game, but how about Fey Reinforcements from the Fey Wanderer Ranger.
Actually, a similar example that isn't a spell is the rule around opportunity attacks in the first place limiting the attack you can take.
Or the things you can do limited by the extra action in haste.
None of those involve nerfing your own spell in order to be able to cast it
If you can't come up with another example, that should tell you something
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)
I honestly have no idea what the rules for opportunity attacks and Haste effects have to do with this conversation.
Fireball explicitly targets a point in space (chapter 10).
The saving throw clause is fine. It just doesn't mention anything about AoE spells.
The rule for a Cone is totally consistent.
Yes, I agree we should use reading comprehensive to determine what is "meant" when the word Target is used. This means that we don't automatically assume that it's using the technical, mechanically significant usage when deciding how it might interact with other Feats and Features.
My mistake. I mixed up our conversation about rules you are quoting to support your position on things like Targeting, Ranges and Areas of Effect with a seperate conversation you were having with someone else about something else. No wonder those examples made no sense!
I have been honest the whole time about the Targeting concept. I mentioned right away that there are problems and inconsistencies in the rules that shouldn't be there. The general rules in Chapter 10 which actually define and explain how targeting works in the game present the concept clearly and consistently. About 95% of the rest of the game is very carefully written to remain consistent with the concept that is defined in those general rules. A very small number of rules, game features and spells which are in the process of explaining a totally separate concept happen to use the term in a lazy, catch-all, common language way that is inconsistent with the technical, mechanically significant way that the game defines them. None of those are written in a manner that suggests that they were intentionally attempting to override the general rules via a specific vs general reexplaining of the game concept. The word is just thrown in where it shouldn't have been in a few places.
Is it your position that the entire set of published material is currently perfectly written? That every single mistake has already been corrected via errata and so we should expect no more errata ever again?
Acknowledging inconsistencies and rules conflicts in the rules is one of the purposes of this forum so that DMs can discuss how to resolve them. "The rules say what they say" is only step 1. When they actually say things that are in conflict then step 2 is deciding what to do about it.
I can't help but think you're attempting to make yourself right by default with the number of rules you're hand-waving as "in error." You need to prove your assertion, not just reassert your position and call it good. Your whole position is begging the question. You assume your stance and dismiss any rules that conflict with it. The only consistency with the "erroneous" rules is that they conflict with your interpretation, an interpretation that's yet to be justified with any clarity.
Let’s talk about what the point of origin is. The point of origin is "a location from which the spell’s energy erupts." Every spell has this because every spell has magic energy that comes from somewhere. It can come from you, the environment, or a chosen target (which can also be you if you choose). Generally, we don't care where the point of origin is when it comes to spellcasting mechanics, but for AoE, it's relevant because it determines the positioning of the AoE.
For example, many people mistakenly assume that Thunderwave is a 15-foot cube with you at the center. But this is wrong and effectively nerfs the AoE to a 5-foot radius with a range of self, like Thunderclap. The AoE rules tell you how to position the cube by starting with the point of origin as a reference point. Based on this, the cube can be in any position where a border is adjacent to your square. This makes the point of origin relevant to AoE, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist for other spells. Magic Missile originates from you, so the point of origin is you. We don't even know where the point of origin for Silvery Barbs is because it only says you distract a creature momentarily, not specifying a location; but that's ok because it's not relevant for the mechanics of the spell.
There is nothing that tells you that you must target the point of origin. You asked me, "If you don't target the point of origin, how exactly do you expect the Area of Effect to materialize exactly where you want it to or even to materialize at all?" I answered: in the same way Slow reads. The AoE is created from the point of origin, and the energy of the spell erupts from that location. The creatures within are targeted for the spell's effects.
Slow is a perfect example of this. The point of origin is a point of your choosing on the perimeter of the AoE. The spell explicitly states that the six creatures are the targets. This demonstrates that the point of origin and targets can be distinct, and the spell functions as intended without targeting the point of origin.
I have cited the rules to support my interpretation, while you have dismissed the rules as written without providing clear justification. This highlights the need for a consistent and rules-based approach to interpreting spell mechanics. Something that you unfortunately lack.
Your rule example for distinct scenarios misses the point of that rule. The first paragraph is just explaining the difference between range of touch and range of self -- those are not AoE spells, they don't have a point of origin.
Your confusion with Booming Blade (one of them anyway) is that you are confusing the Target of a non-magical attack mentioned as part of the Area's effect with the Target of the actual spell. This is a perfectly fine usage of Target, it's just that this is the Target of an attack, not the target of the spell.
More later.
The first paragraph is not merely distinguishing the two, it's defining the two. One thing I noticed about these rules is that they do not start with the range terminology and define it, they start by describing what the spells do and tell you what that means for the range. In other words, the mechanics of the spell are defined by the effect and the range is made to accommodate that effect. That being the case, then it would be more proper to interpret the targets based on the effect and then see how it interacts with the range. This is what the creators did with Booming Blade. They noticed that the original spell was in error and came up with an errata to change the range. Why the range? Because the old range was not properly limiting the spell as they intended. But in order for them to conclude this, they would have needed to prioritize the spell effect rather than the range. It seems you're doing the opposite with your interpretive method.
Concerning Booming Blade, I find it interesting that you assume the attack is non-magical even though it clearly has magical effects applied to it. Let’s break down what the spell says:
On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn.
So what... It's a completely non-magical attack with a magic effect? Or... is it a magical attack made through your normal weapon attack? It seems the latter is more consistent with the wording in the spell. The phrasing indicates that the melee attack and the magical effect are not separate events but rather parts of a single action facilitated by the spell. The creature hit by the melee attack becomes sheathed in booming energy as a direct consequence of the spell, not as an incidental effect.
By arguing that the attack is non-magical and that the creature hit is not the target of the spell, you are overlooking the integrated nature of the spell’s mechanics. The melee attack and the magical effect are part of a unified action described in the spell’s text. Therefore, the target of the spell is indeed the creature hit by the weapon attack, as it is the entity that becomes sheathed in booming energy due to the spell's effect.
This interpretation is consistent with the rules on spell targeting, which state that the spell’s description determines the target. In Booming Blade, the description clearly indicates that the target of the weapon attack becomes the target of the spell’s magical effect.
Also, to supplement my point, I'll call back to the quote provided by tarodne:
@JeremyECrawford That's correct! Spells with a range of "Self (XYZ)" are in a special category, where each spell defines how its targeting works. Also, in the range rules (PH, p. 202, 3rd paragraph), the caster is intentionally not called the target of such spells.
JC is telling you the intention behind the two paragraphs with distinct scenarios. He says the second paragraph does not specify the target in the category in the second of the two we looked at, and this was intentional. At this point, you can only say this is wrong by calling JC a liar. He stated the intention, he obviously would know the intention... So either he's correct or he's lying. Which is it?
for example the Range rule that mistakenly talks about targets instead of origins
Wait, what are you talking about here? Points of origin in and of themselves have nothing to do with how the Range of a spell is defined. The Range of a spell is the maximum distance between the source of the spellcasting and the target (the destination) of the spell. It's how far the spellcasting process can travel before it must take effect someplace. When the definition of the Range says this:
Range
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range. For a spell like magic missile, the target is a creature. For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts.
That can't be the mistake. This literally is the rule for Ranges. This is where the term is defined and explained. Anything in the game that references "the Range" of a spell has to refer back to this definition.
If instead you are actually talking about the targeting rules, that's the same story. The rule literally is that you target the point of origin for AoE spells. Anything else in the game that references the target of an AoE spell has to refer back to this definition.
That's the problem with that DMG table. That table is aboutsomething else. The entire point of that section in the DMG is to offer guidance or suggestions to a DM who is running a game using a Theatre of the Mind style of gameplay instead of a Miniatures and Grid System style of gameplay. That's an entirely separate topic that's being discussed. In the course of explaining what to do about that particular topic, they happen to use the word "Target" in a way that is assumed to reference back to a general rule. But, that version of a general rule that's being referenced does not exist. The rule says something else. That's what make the usage of the word in that DMG table an error. Honestly, that is so self-explanatory that it's baffling to me that so many in this thread are having trouble grasping this, but I'm just assuming that that's because I haven't chosen just the right, precise enough words to fully explain it to create that "Ah ha" moment for people yet.
All this because you and I can come to exactly opposite conclusions about which one is incorrect when we read the sections of the spells chapter on Range and Targets. And that's ok.
I mean, sure, in and of itself it's ok if we come to different conclusions.
But just to be clear: What you are proposing is to completely ignore and/or reject the entirety of Chapter 10 in the PHB which is the content which provides all of the general rules, important terms and game concepts for how to cast a spell for the whole game. Instead, you want to rely on a couple of side rules and a DMG table whose purpose is to explain a different aspect of the game and which attempts to merely reference back to the general rule for targeting and you want to apply the usage of the term which about 5 out of 100 spells that are all trying to say the same thing actually use and you want to say that THAT must be the rule for targeting in D&D 5e.
That's certainly a different conclusion than mine. But I am going to stick with my conclusion which is to use the general rules that are given, established, defined and otherwise fully explained in Chapter 10 of the PHB and I am going to recognize the small handful of places throughout the whole game that are simply trying to refer back to those rules and are doing so incorrectly. I will read and recognize what those texts are "trying to say" without getting too hung up on the one word that wasn't used appropriately.
Furthermore, just because one rule makes a reference that refers back to a general rule doesn't make that some sort of exception to the rule. If the reference refers back to a rule that doesn't exist instead of the rule that does exist, then that is simply an erroneous inconsistency in the rules. There are plenty of these remaining in 5e which have not yet been addressed via errata. That is what it is. It's the DM's job to make the "best" possible ruling given all of the information that he has on the subject.
You need to prove your assertion, not just reassert your position and call it good.
My assertion has been proven endlessly and exhaustively at this point, fully supported with quotes taken directly from the rulebooks dozens of times now. I invite you to go back and reread the thread from the beginning and notice how many times I have directly quoted the rules and how few times I have quoted various tweets and verbal conversations.
Let’s talk about what the point of origin is. The point of origin is "a location from which the spell’s energy erupts." Every spell has this because every spell has magic energy that comes from somewhere. It can come from you, the environment, or a chosen target (which can also be you if you choose). Generally, we don't care where the point of origin is when it comes to spellcasting mechanics, but for AoE, it's relevant because it determines the positioning of the AoE.
This is completely and totally incorrect and this concept is pretty important. The correct, fully quoted rule is this:
Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts.
No, every spell does NOT have this. Because not all spells have an Area of Effect. This rule comes from a subsection called Areas of Effect which discusses the thing that is created by a subset of all spells -- the AoE spells.
What your above train of thought is referencing is the source of the spell -- in other words, where the spell is being cast from. Spells are always cast from a spellcaster or from a magic item (I can't think of any examples of any other way that a spell can be cast). The Range of a spell specifies the maximum distance between where the spell is cast from, to where the spell is cast TO. The Area of an AoE spell is the Area of Effect that is created by casting the spell -- it is created at the place where the spell is cast TO.
The source of a spell has absolutely nothing at all to do whatsoever with the Area of Effect that some spells might create.
Think of watching someone casting a spell as being similar to watching 4th of July fireworks. When a firework is shot out of a cannon, you see a rocket propel higher and higher into the sky. But it can only go up so high before it explodes into a sphere of sparkly flames. The source of the firework was the cannon. The maximum height would be the range of that firework. The firework can only target that point in the sky if there is a clear path between the cannon and that point in the sky. The sphere of sparkly flames is the Area of Effect that is created at a point of origin at the center of the sphere, high up in the sky -- the upper edge of that sphere could extend beyond the range. That spot was targeted by the cannon. If a bird happens to be flying through that area at that time, it might be affected by the sphere of sparkly flames, but it was not targeted. The target was a point in the sky where the cannon was aiming and where the firework erupted. Now consider that other kind of firework that just creates a loud boom and maybe a flash of light but no sphere of sparkly flames. Now let's assume that the cannon moves and automatically tracks a bird flying across the sky -- the cannon takes aim directly at that bird and this particular type of firework only explodes if it directly impacts that bird at the moment prior to exploding. Now you have a spell that directly targets a creature and does not have an AoE, like Magic Missile. Hopefully in either of these cases the cannon never tries to target "self" or there'd be a pretty big problem.
Magic Missile originates from you, so the point of origin is you.
This is false. Magic Missile does not have a point of origin -- it does not create an Area of Effect. It's important to use game terms the way that they are defined in the game, not in a loose, descriptive manner with a colloquial, every-day usage. Otherwise, people might think that you actually target creatures that are affected by an AoE, for example.
You asked me, "If you don't target the point of origin, how exactly do you expect the Area of Effect to materialize exactly where you want it to or even to materialize at all?" I answered: in the same way Slow reads. The AoE is created from the point of origin, and the energy of the spell erupts from that location.
What? This makes no sense. It really feels like there is a really big misunderstanding of what an Area of Effect is here. It has nothing to do with where the spell was cast from. So . . . "the AoE is created from the point of origin, and the energy of the spell erupts from that location." From WHAT location, exactly?? You never selected a location! That's the point. Do you think that your Fireball just knows about the perfect place to explode all by itself? That's why an explicit example of this is given right in the general rules of Chapter 10, to explain this very concept:
For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts.
Slow is a perfect example of this. The point of origin is a point of your choosing on the perimeter of the AoE. The spell explicitly states that the six creatures are the targets. This demonstrates that the point of origin and targets can be distinct, and the spell functions as intended without targeting the point of origin.
Slow is a tricky spell because the selection of specific creatures to affect is involved. This limits the overall power of the spell. If there happen to be more than 6 creatures located within the AoE then that AoE can only actually affect up to 6 of them, but it's the spellcaster's choice in this case which 6 (or fewer) are affected. Although you are selecting 6 of the creatures (in the sense of "out of all of the available creatures, I choose this one instead of that one" or "I choose this one and I don't choose that one"), you are not actually targeting them. For this reason, the word "target" is used in a manner that is inconsistent with the general rules and is therefore an error. But it's not nearly as obvious of an error as the one in the text for Fireball.
The spell is an AoE spell that targets an area (via its point of origin). If the spell had said "you target up to 6 creatures within range" or even "you cause up to 6 creatures within range to become sluggish", then we'd be talking about a spell that targets those creatures. But as soon as you are talking about a spell that creates a certain area in which things happen, you are now targeting the area with the spell, not the creatures. "You alter time around . . . creatures . . . in a 40-foot cube [ that is located ] within range." It's an AoE spell.
I have cited the rules to support my interpretation, while you have dismissed the rules as written without providing clear justification. This highlights the need for a consistent and rules-based approach to interpreting spell mechanics. Something that you unfortunately lack.
This is just silly. I have quoted the rules an outrageous number of times in this thread.
One thing I noticed about these rules is that they do not start with the range terminology and define it, they start by describing what the spells do and tell you what that means for the range. In other words, the mechanics of the spell are defined by the effect and the range is made to accommodate that effect. That being the case, then it would be more proper to interpret the targets based on the effect and then see how it interacts with the range. This is what the creators did with Booming Blade. They noticed that the original spell was in error and came up with an errata to change the range. Why the range? Because the old range was not properly limiting the spell as they intended. But in order for them to conclude this, they would have needed to prioritize the spell effect rather than the range. It seems you're doing the opposite with your interpretive method.
I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make here. Of course the spell effect and the range have to coordinate with each other. That's my whole point! You don't create a spell like Magic Missile and then give it a range of "self" and you don't create a spell like Shield and give it a range of 150 feet. These have to work together. The effect of the spell describes what happens to the target and the Range tells you how far away that person, place, or thing can be.
Who knows what the intentions of the creators really were when they changed the Booming Blade spell via errata. And who cares? Their intentions don't matter. The fact is that the changes that were actually made were to the range of the spell, the creation of a defined size and shape of an Area of Effect, and a reference to that area in the spell description instead of a reference to the range (Remember, the text "within Range" was changed to "within 5 feet"). What these changes actually DO is that they fundamentally change how the spell actually works in all of the ways that I've described several times in this thread.
Concerning Booming Blade, I find it interesting that you assume the attack is non-magical even though it clearly has magical effects applied to it. Let’s break down what the spell says:
On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn.
So what... It's a completely non-magical attack with a magic effect? Or... is it a magical attack made through your normal weapon attack?
It's neither. The magic effect is caused by the Area of Effect. The conditional triggering event that causes this is a successful normal melee weapon attack made within the hard-coded defined area of this AoE by the particular weapon (magical or non-magical) that was used as a spell component in the casting of the spell. The attack itself is not an attack from the spell.
The relevant text from the spell description is:
make a melee attack with it
This is getting into the weeds a little bit, but there are basically 4 categories of attacks that exist in the game:
1) A melee weapon attack
2) A ranged weapon attack
3) A melee spell attack
4) A ranged spell attack
The only attacks that involve the spell making an attack a.k.a. the spell actually targeting a creature are categories #3 and #4. Those will always use those three words in that exact combination in any spell description which does this. An example of this is Shocking Grasp. Not an AoE spell. It involves making a melee spell attack. That spell targets a creature with an attack. Booming Blade does not.
The melee attack and the magical effect are part of a unified action described in the spell’s text. Therefore, the target of the spell is indeed the creature hit by the weapon attack, as it is the entity that becomes sheathed in booming energy due to the spell's effect.
This is the correct premise but the wrong conclusion. Yes, the attack and the subsequent effect on the creature are part of a unified action. But the target of the spell is NOT the creature hit by the weapon attack. The target is the location of the weapon's brandishing which spawns an Area of Effect which affects the creature within the Area when and only when that creature is hit by the attack from that weapon.
This interpretation is consistent with the rules on spell targeting, which state that the spell’s description determines the target. In Booming Blade, the description clearly indicates that the target of the weapon attack becomes the target of the spell’s magical effect.
Yes, the spell's description, which includes all of the spell's parameters, determines the target of the spell. No, your interpretation is not consistent with the rules on spell targeting. In Booming Blade, the description clearly indicates that the target of the weapon attack becomes the affected creature of the spell's AoE which was created by casting the spell at the spellcaster's location.
Generally, there is no need to respond to the content of a tweet since tweets are not the Rules As Written, but quite obviously there is a 3rd option besides "he's correct" or "he's lying" which is obviously that "he is mistaken".
As a small grievance, I’m sure you’re responding to my post piece by piece. However, it is annoying to see you respond to something saying, “you never addressed X,” only for me to address it in the very next quote you take from me. It would be appreciated if you tried to understand my post as a whole before taking it apart.
You need to prove your assertion, not just reassert your position and call it good.
My assertion has been proven endlessly and exhaustively at this point, fully supported with quotes taken directly from the rulebooks dozens of times now. I invite you to go back and reread the thread from the beginning and notice how many times I have directly quoted the rules and how few times I have quoted various tweets and verbal conversations.
What I was specifically addressing was your hand waving of the wording in the Slow spell. That should have been obvious from the context of that quote you snagged out of that paragraph. You had no basis, no citation to suggest such aside from its conflict with your interpretation. But dismissing written rules is not using RAW.
Let’s talk about what the point of origin is. The point of origin is "a location from which the spell’s energy erupts." Every spell has this because every spell has magic energy that comes from somewhere. It can come from you, the environment, or a chosen target (which can also be you if you choose). Generally, we don't care where the point of origin is when it comes to spellcasting mechanics, but for AoE, it's relevant because it determines the positioning of the AoE.
This is completely and totally incorrect and this concept is pretty important. The correct, fully quoted rule is this:
Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts.
No, every spell does NOT have this. Because not all spells have an Area of Effect. This rule comes from a subsection called Areas of Effect which discusses the thing that is created by a subset of all spells -- the AoE spells.
What your above train of thought is referencing is the source of the spell -- in other words, where the spell is being cast from. Spells are always cast from a spellcaster or from a magic item (I can't think of any examples of any other way that a spell can be cast). The Range of a spell specifies the maximum distance between where the spell is cast from, to where the spell is cast TO. The Area of an AoE spell is the Area of Effect that is created by casting the spell -- it is created at the place where the spell is cast TO.
I understand that this citation is particularly talking about AoE, but I would say this is because it’s only mechanically relevant to AoE. The point of origin itself is clearly defined as “a location from which the spell’s energy erupts.” Every spell would have such a thing. If you want a citation for that:
A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse into a specific, limited expression.
So clearly under the definition of a spell, it says it has magical energies. Presumably, there is a location from which this energy ‘erupts’ or manifests and releases. But as I said, it’s only mechanically relevant for AoE. Since chapter 10 is mostly explaining play spell mechanics, it makes sense to define it in the only section that’s relevant to it. But if we take this for what it says, It is only saying AoEs have a PoO, not that they exclusivelyhave one. Also, I’m clearly not talking about the source meaning casting location. I’m talking about where the energies manifest and erupt or flow outward, meaning the point of origin.
You asked me, "If you don't target the point of origin, how exactly do you expect the Area of Effect to materialize exactly where you want it to or even to materialize at all?" I answered: in the same way Slow reads. The AoE is created from the point of origin, and the energy of the spell erupts from that location.
What? This makes no sense. It really feels like there is a really big misunderstanding of what an Area of Effect is here. It has nothing to do with where the spell was cast from. So . . . "the AoE is created from the point of origin, and the energy of the spell erupts from that location." From WHAT location, exactly?? You never selected a location! That's the point. Do you think that your Fireball just knows about the perfect place to explode all by itself? That's why an explicit example of this is given right in the general rules of Chapter 10, to explain this very concept:
For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts.
It is a little ironic to hear you say that after what you said about catapult… Do you think the object you launch just decides where to land on its own? But I’ll address the substance of this in the next quote (because I read your post before responding to it).
Slow is a perfect example of this. The point of origin is a point of your choosing on the perimeter of the AoE. The spell explicitly states that the six creatures are the targets. This demonstrates that the point of origin and targets can be distinct, and the spell functions as intended without targeting the point of origin.
Slow is a tricky spell because the selection of specific creatures to affect is involved. This limits the overall power of the spell. If there happen to be more than 6 creatures located within the AoE then that AoE can only actually affect up to 6 of them, but it's the spellcaster's choice in this case which 6 (or fewer) are affected. Although you are selecting 6 of the creatures (in the sense of "out of all of the available creatures, I choose this one instead of that one" or "I choose this one and I don't choose that one"), you are not actually targeting them. For this reason, the word "target" is used in a manner that is inconsistent with the general rules and is therefore an error. But it's not nearly as obvious of an error as the one in the text for Fireball.
The point I was making was that AoE spells can work, without targeting the point of origin, in the same manner that Slow works RAW. You designate a point of origin somewhere within range to designate your AoE. After doing so, you target creatures within the AoE. As you said, Slow is a special case because it has limited effect in the AoE. So typically, creatures would automatically be targeted if they’re in the AoE. Such is the case with Fireball if you look at it RAW instead of hand waving it. I know you point out that spell targets the point of origin, but I think it’s obvious that spells can have multiple targets. So it can target both the point of origin and the creatures inside. After all, it’s not like you’re aiming for the point of origin just to hit it… You’re aiming for the point of origin to position the AoE so you can hit creatures with the spell.
One thing I noticed about these rules is that they do not start with the range terminology and define it, they start by describing what the spells do and tell you what that means for the range. In other words, the mechanics of the spell are defined by the effect and the range is made to accommodate that effect. That being the case, then it would be more proper to interpret the targets based on the effect and then see how it interacts with the range. This is what the creators did with Booming Blade. They noticed that the original spell was in error and came up with an errata to change the range. Why the range? Because the old range was not properly limiting the spell as they intended. But in order for them to conclude this, they would have needed to prioritize the spell effect rather than the range. It seems you're doing the opposite with your interpretive method.
I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make here. Of course the spell effect and the range have to coordinate with each other. That's my whole point! You don't create a spell like Magic Missile and then give it a range of "self" and you don't create a spell like Shield and give it a range of 150 feet. These have to work together. The effect of the spell describes what happens to the target and the Range tells you how far away that person, place, or thing can be.
My point is that you seem to prioritize the range parameter over the wording in the spell effect. The method of interpretation that would be more proper is to look at the spell effect and see how the range accommodates or limits it. Range self (5-feet) can still target something within 5 feet because it is within the range (5 feet). “But this isn’t the range…” It’s in the range block. RAW, it’s within range.
The melee attack and the magical effect are part of a unified action described in the spell’s text. Therefore, the target of the spell is indeed the creature hit by the weapon attack, as it is the entity that becomes sheathed in booming energy due to the spell's effect.
This is the correct premise but the wrong conclusion. Yes, the attack and the subsequent effect on the creature are part of a unified action. But the target of the spell is NOT the creature hit by the weapon attack. The target is the location of the weapon's brandishing which spawns an Area of Effect which affects the creature within the Area when and only when that creature is hit by the attack from that weapon.
It has been many times you have repeated that, but it doesn’t get more compelling with repetition. I asked the question before, “what is the effect that affects the target of Booming Blade then.” I got a weird answer that the target doesn’t need to be affected by it, but it seems we’ve moved past that at this point. I have made this point, that spell targets are affected by the magic of the spell, Booming Blade doesn’t affect the caster with the magic of the spell, therefore the caster is not the target of Booming Blade. This argument is supported by the rules under targeting. I haven’t really gotten a proper response except, “the point of origin has to be the target,” which is again… unsupported. The book says the following:
Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell’s effect must be you.
Notice that the point of origin is not called the target. Which brings us to JC, who said this was intentional… Your claim that “he’s clearly mistaken” misses the point I was making. He would know the intention because he was part of the design team. He literally can’t be mistaken because these are the words he is the originator of. It baffles me to no end you sitting there saying, “we may never know what the intention was,” as if these books just popped up out of nowhere. JC would know the intention of these rules. You have the intention handed to you from the horse’s mouth yet you still dismiss it. What would it take to admit you’re wrong about this? Divine intervention?
You need to prove your assertion, not just reassert your position and call it good.
My assertion has been proven endlessly and exhaustively at this point, fully supported with quotes taken directly from the rulebooks dozens of times now. I invite you to go back and reread the thread from the beginning and notice how many times I have directly quoted the rules and how few times I have quoted various tweets and verbal conversations.
What I was specifically addressing was your hand waving of the wording in the Slow spell. That should have been obvious from the context of that quote you snagged out of that paragraph. You had no basis, no citation to suggest such aside from its conflict with your interpretation. But dismissing written rules is not using RAW.
Ok, if this was just a criticism of my analysis of the Slow spell then that's my mistake. I assumed that you were commenting about my total position about all of the general rules for spellcasting. I've subsequently gone into more detail on the Slow spell in my Post #179 so hopefully your questions on that are now answered.
Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts.
I understand that this citation is particularly talking about AoE, but I would say this is because it’s only mechanically relevant to AoE. The point of origin itself is clearly defined as “a location from which the spell’s energy erupts.” Every spell would have such a thing. If you want a citation for that:
A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse into a specific, limited expression.
So clearly under the definition of a spell, it says it has magical energies. Presumably, there is a location from which this energy ‘erupts’ or manifests and releases . . . It is only saying AoEs have a PoO, not that they exclusively have one.
You've come to the wrong conclusion here and I've underlined the places where you've gone wrong. You are making a presumption about how the system works that simply is not in the rules. In fact, every spell does not have such a thing. In 5e, the term "point of origin" means something specific when it comes to the general rules for spellcasting. It is the starting point for an Area of Effect that a spell creates, which then expands from that point to fill the defined space. Even though the words "point of origin" might logically mean something else in the every-day world, we cannot just apply our own definitions.
A spell like Magic Missile doesn't have an Area of Effect -- it directly targets a creature with the spell. When the spell reaches that target, only the target is affected by the spell. When the target is a creature, nothing is erupting to fill any sort of space. You aim at the creature, and it is adversely affected by the magical energies as defined by the spell and that's it. There is no point of origin involved there.
Furthermore, a spell like Magic Missile cannot target a point in space. For a typical spell you never actually have a choice about which of the 3 categories of targets you may choose. Remember the rule: "A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets [ a person, place or thing ]".
Notice how you didn’t cite anything that says, “the point of origin is always the target when you cast a spell with an AoE.” Just unproven assertions.
This has been fully explained several times. It says it in the rule for 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
The correct way to read this is that the spell's description (which includes all spell parameters) tells you which category the spell targets and you pick a specific target within those valid choices to be affected by the spell's magic. If the spell targets a creature, you must choose a specific creature from among all available creatures within Range. If the spell targets an object, you must choose an object from among all available objects within Range. If the spell creates an Area of Effect, you must choose a point of origin for an area of effect that is within Range.
Furthermore, there is no mechanic in the game for an Area of Effect to appear anywhere other than to specifically target that location with your spell. It doesn't just happen by itself.
So . . . "the AoE is created from the point of origin, and the energy of the spell erupts from that location." From WHAT location, exactly?? You never selected a location! That's the point. Do you think that your Fireball just knows about the perfect place to explode all by itself? That's why an explicit example of this is given right in the general rules of Chapter 10, to explain this very concept:
For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts.
It is a little ironic to hear you say that after what you said about catapult… Do you think the object you launch just decides where to land on its own?
Ok, this is honestly frustrating as this has been covered many times now also. Catapult is NOT an AoE spell. It's a spell that targets an object. From among the 3 valid categories of a target, it is targeting the "thing" from among the list of "person, place or thing". That thing then flies in any direction up to 90 feet with no restrictions. It doesn't have to fly at anything. It could fly into an open field in which case the spell explains that it would fall to the ground. If something happens to be in the way then it would stop early. Nothing is targeted in this spell except the object. Remember the rule for targets:
A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect
Once the object is targeted, none of those three options applies. The spell is not telling you that you have to make the object fly at a creature or at an object or at a point in space. It simply flies in any direction. This is an effect that is placed on the object itself, not on anything else since nothing else is being targeted by this spell. And once again, this is not an AoE spell.
The point I was making was that AoE spells can work, without targeting the point of origin
No, they can't. Not ever. This point you are making is wrong. The rules specify that the target of the spell is one of the 3 categories, based on what the spell description is telling you. When the spell creates an AoE, that spell targets a point of origin. There is no other way that that spell actually works.
Once again (yet again) this goes back to the concept that the one and only thing that an AoE spell actually does is to create the AoE.
A spell that says that it targets a creature only targets a creature -- it doesn't actually do anything else.
A spell that says that it targets an object only targets an object -- it doesn't actually do anything else.
A spell that creates an Area of Effect targets the point of origin so that the Area of Effect can be created -- it doesn't actually do anything else.
This goes back to the premise given in the rules for Targets, which explains that a spell is trying to affect a particular thing with magic. That's ALL that it does. It affects a person, place, or thing. When it affects a place, that's ALL that it does. The Area of Effect that is created there THEN might have some sort of interaction with creatures and objects that are within that area. The spell is not doing that. The spell creates the area. Chapter 10 explains all of this clearly and all of that has been quoted many times.
You designate a point of origin somewhere within range to designate your AoE.
The only mechanic for doing this provided in this game is to target the point of origin. There are exactly zero spells in the game which explicitly override this mechanic.
After all, it’s not like you’re aiming for the point of origin just to hit it… You’re aiming for the point of origin to position the AoE so you can hit creatures with the spell.
Sure, the spellcaster is doing this. That's just good battle tactics. But the spell itself doesn't do this. The spell describes how it works to the spellcaster long before that spellcaster ever even attempts to cast the spell.
In modern warfare, grenades are not required to be thrown directly at or to come into direct contact with a creature in order to function. Their design is such that they are thrown at a point in space or onto some sort of surface or whatever and that is enough to create its effects. An area immediately surrounding the grenade's location where it explodes is negatively impacted by the explosion. If something happens to be in that area, it wasn't targeted by the grenade, but it is negatively impacted by what is happening to the Area around the grenade at that moment. A soldier who uses grenades might use this knowledge about how they work to his advantage. Compare this to a sniper rifle -- that weapon has to directly target a creature in order to be effective in the attempt to negatively affect that creature. That soldier would use that weapon in a different way and for a different purpose regarding what he is trying to affect.
My point is that you seem to prioritize the range parameter over the wording in the spell effect.
Not at all. A spell's description is the entire block of information, including all parameters and text. The parameters and text must work together to properly describe the spell. Nothing is prioritized, it's all important information.
Range self (5-feet) can still target something within 5 feet because it is within the range (5 feet). “But this isn’t the range…” It’s in the range block. RAW, it’s within range.
Ok. This argument is absolutely, positively, without any shred of doubt, 100% wrong. The reason for the emphasis here is two-fold. It has become a tiresome point to have to correct since this has popped up several times now. But more importantly, this concept is extremely important for anyone that wants to play the game in a manner that even resembles the RAW interpretation of the rules for the game.
As has already been explained, the older hardcopy books did not include a separate parameter line of text to describe the size and shape of an Area of Effect as standard formatting for every spell block. That's because a majority of all spells are not AoE spells so you would have had dozens upon dozens of lines of text which simply says: "Area: N/A". They save a couple of pages of book printing costs by just not including a separate line there and instead they tack this onto the Range parameter when needed. The more recent online entries of the spells explicitly list this parameter as Range/Area as a way of being super-duper extra redundantly clear that the first number is the Range of the spell, and the entity that describes a size and shape of an area in space is the description for an Area of Effect that is created by the spell.
Related to this -- since every spell has a Range listed in its parameters (even in the old hard copy versions), the text for the spell effect will always refer back to this with the phrase "within range". When you see the text of the spell effect refer to a hard-coded number, that is never a reference to the range of the spell. In many cases, that is describing the size and shape of an Area of Effect. It's not a distance from the source. It's a size and shape of an area that exists somewhere in space.
Let's again look at the very important rules that are related to this:
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
A spell that has a Range of "self (5-foot-radius)" creates a sphere with a radius of 5 feet that is centered at the spellcaster's location by targeting the spellcaster's location with the spell. A creature that is standing 5 feet away is within the area of effect but is not within the range of the spell. That's just what that parameter means. There is no alternate meaning.
It has been many times you have repeated that, but it doesn’t get more compelling with repetition. I asked the question before, “what is the effect that affects the target of Booming Blade then.” I got a weird answer that the target doesn’t need to be affected by it, but it seems we’ve moved past that at this point. I have made this point, that spell targets are affected by the magic of the spell, Booming Blade doesn’t affect the caster with the magic of the spell, therefore the caster is not the target of Booming Blade. This argument is supported by the rules under targeting. I haven’t really gotten a proper response except, “the point of origin has to be the target,” which is again… unsupported. The book says the following:
Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell’s effect must be you.
Notice that the point of origin is not called the target.
As for your question, the effect that affects the target of Booming Blade is the creation of an Area of Effect at that location. This is in fact all that the spell actually does when it is cast.
If you are actually asking about what is the effect that affects the attack target that is mentioned as part of Booming Blade's spell effect, then that is a different story.
It's extremely important to remember that the rules which govern attack targets are different than the rules which govern spell targets. The rules for attack targets are given in Chapter 9 and the rules for spell targets are given in Chapter 10.
The effect that affects the attack target is an effect that is created by the Area of Effect that the creature is standing within -- that effect only affects that creature when certain conditions are met. Instead of that condition being a simple failed saving throw, like many other cantrips, that condition is being on the wrong end of an attack roll that is made by the particular specified weapon which was used to create the AoE.
Yes, it's complex, but everything about that explanation is valid and consistent with itself. Even the word "target" is used in a manner that is consistent with the rules -- but the key is to recognize that the word is referring to a Chapter 9 attack target, not a Chapter 10 spell target.
What would it take to admit you’re wrong about this? Divine intervention?
Honestly, even divine intervention won't do the trick in this case. I am 100% correct on how this works in 5e and I know it. I will take this thread to 1000 pages if it means keeping the correct information front and center for future readers. I offered the opportunity for us to all have our last remarks about our own interpretations without referring to why others in the thread are wrong -- that was a failure. I was repeatedly told that I was wrong and every time that that happens I will correct those falsehoods. I am now in this thread for the duration.
You say Range includes targets because targets are points of origin. If there is a mistake in the definition between targets and points of origin, it is that they overlap at all. Points of origin should be entirely separate and entirely what Range is concerned with.
That's really not what I've said about Range and your conclusion makes no sense. The entire definition of what Range means is very simple: It is the maximum distance between the source of the spell and the target of the spell. That's it. By definition, targets must be referenced since that's what the Range of a spell actually means.
Once that definition of Range is established, later on in the rules we learn what it actually means to target something and what the 3 categories of a valid target are in the game. One of those is a point of origin. The concept of targeting cannot be separated from the concept of the point of origin because this is one of the 3 types of things that can be targeted.
Once that is established, later on in the rules we learn what the point of origin actually is, so that we can actually target an actual thing that is properly defined and described. There is no need to actually use the word "target" when discussing and defining what a point of origin actually is. It's already been established that we can target them.
None of this is a "mistake". These are what the general rules for spellcasting actually are. When other game Features and spell descriptions refer back to one of these terms, we must refer back to these general rules to understand what is meant when the term is used. If such a game Feature or spell description seemingly refers back to a term with an implied meaning that doesn't actually exist for that term, then that is the mistake, not the definition of the term itself.
"The target of a spell must be within the spell's range." and "A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic." are completely at odds with each other. If creatures affected can be outside of the range and only the point of origin is limited by range, the range rules should say that, but they say the opposite.
What? No, that's exactly what the rules say. That's the whole reason why you have this one: "Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise."
The two rules that you quoted here are not at odds with each other at all. One of the three things that you can attempt to affect with your spell's magic is an area in space. You do this by targeting the point of origin for that area and that point of origin must be within range. At that point, the targeting process is complete and the spell has been cast and the size and shape for that Area that was created could extend beyond the range. If the created effect that now exists within the Area of Effect now interacts with a creature who is located within that area, then precisely how that creature is affected by it is described separately -- that's not part of the targeting of the spell. That's a description of what the created effect actually is and how it might affect things. The spell just creates the Area of Effect because that area is what you are attempting to affect with your spell's magic.
However you think "target" should be defined, you admit to 'erroneous' uses of the word, so guess what? Booming Blade has one of those same kinds of uses. Any suggestion otherwise is hearsay, gobbledygook or other homebrew.
Actually, there's nothing wrong with Booming Blade's usage of the word "target" in its text. The key is to recognize that the word is referring to a Chapter 9 attack target, not a Chapter 10 spell target.
OK, I think the record here is clear. Nothing will convince you you're wrong. Not the authors nor even the books themselves. You extrapolate on the wording, then dismiss any rules that run contrary to that extrapolation as erroneous.
So I'll let the record speak for itself. You can go by RAW, or this guy's head cannon. You can accept some internet dude's interpretation, or the originators of the book itself.
Let me be clear here: it isn't a problem if you have a different opinion from another user here, as long as you present it that way.
This does remind me of what I said about whether dissonant whispers triggers the Thunder damage or not. Although I may have the opinion that it ought to trigger for the same conditions as opportunity attacks, I'm not going to say this is definitely RAW. And if you disagree, that's OK. Play how you want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'll make my final statement now.
The point in the argument I've been presenting here was simple. Spells are meant to affect the target with the spell's magic, booming blade does not mean to affect the caster with the spell's magic, therefore the caster cannot be the target of booming blade. Saying "Of course the spellcaster is trying to affect a target with his spell, that's a given." concedes the argument effectively.
This is the argument I relied on since JC is not trusted as a source apparently. So I argued from the PHB, and this argument is the result.
We all agree that the point of origin for booming blade is on self, but I don't think the point of origin is the spell target. This gets into "the range is self" stuff, but clearly 5 feet are also in the range... leaving the possibility of targets in that range as well. No one can deny booming blade is quite unique with its mechanics, so it shouldn't be a surprise that it has unique targeting mechanics.
I would have liked to address the specific beats general thing directly, but I'll generally address it. How the range notation is interpreted is a general rule and how the spell worked based off the effect is a specific one. The argument that a rule cannot beat itself is flawed because you’re grouping multiple rules together. The general rule is how range works, and the specific rule is the spell effect. Those can conflict, thus invoking the specific beats general rule.
I tried to use catapult as an example of this principle, but the counter was that the wording of the spell is in error. The argument that it ought to have been like magic stone is absurd. That spell is creating an entirely distinct action for you to take. There are no general rules to govern that action so the spell needs to define it. It has to be explicit, and if anything it's not explicit enough. Since throwing it constitutes a ranged spell attack, people argue about whether it's compatible with multiattack. I would say yes, because you're not casting a spell by throwing it.
But this is all moot since apparently chain lightning is accepted as an exceptional spell in the way I presented catapult. Chain lightning, like catapult, has a two step targeting ability. You target one creature or object in range, then target 3 different creatures or objects in a range specified from the initial target. This could not be simply included in the range block, because those ranges are always with respect to the caster, but the second step targets are within a range of the first target. The point being that specific rules for spell effects can overrule the general notations of the same spell. I would argue booming blade is a example of this because it has a unique feature of targeting by attacking, which is difficult to define with standard notation.
This argument aside, I created this thread to present the spell combo I came up with. I was essentially inviting scrutiny to see if it would hold up or if someone would show it doesn't work. One of the criticisms I received before was that dissonant whispers does not provoke because it forces them to move. It was easy to disprove this since the target clearly uses their reaction to move. But this made me want to put it to more scrutiny to identify more problems, and I thank everyone who helped me do this. Even if we disagree in the end, you all still helped me and I thank you.
And regardless of your position, I think we all agree at least that using dissonant whispers in melee range to provoke opportunity itself is good, even without booming blade.
Just chiming back in regarding comments that referenced my posts so I can clear up any misunderstandings, misinterpretations and incorrect conclusions.
It looks like there's been a misunderstanding here. The rule for targets begins with a premise that a spellcaster is trying to affect something with magic. It then gives 3 options for what can be targeted in order to make that happen which are meant to correspond with the premise of what is being affected.
So, if you want to affect a creature, you target the creature.
If you want to affect an object, you target an object.
If you want to affect an area, you target a point of origin for an area of effect.
It's really that simple.
Since Booming Blade is an AoE spell with a Range of "self", not only can the spellcaster's location be the target of the spell but it must be the target of the spell.
Ok, for everyone who is still making statements like this, I would appreciate it if you would attempt to answer this question with quotes from the rules to help me understand your idea:
How exactly do you think that an Area of Effect materializes at exactly the location that you are hoping for? Why doesn't the Area of Effect appear in a random place? For that matter, how do you expect the Area of Effect to appear at all? If you are trying to affect an area with magic by filling that space up with an Area of Effect, but you aren't targeting the point of origin -- what exactly is the mechanic that makes this happen? As a Bonus Question: What do you think an Area of Effect spell actually does when you cast it?
I'm not sure if this point was in response to one of my posts or not but I'll clear this up anyway just in case. This statement is just 100% false and that has been noted probably 30 times now. The Range of Booming Blade is self, and targets must be within Range.
Catapult is not a good example of specific vs general for the Range rule. A better example of this was Chain Lightning.
No one ever said that the Catapult spell ought to have been like Magic Stone. Magic Stone was an example of a spell that targets one thing and then the spell effect directly targets something else. Chain Lightning is an example of that also. Catapult is not.
When you make a ranged spell attack with Magic Stone, you are not taking the Attack Action so features like Extra Attack (which is what I assume you mean by multiattack) do not apply. Instead of taking the Attack Action, you are taking an action that is defined within the effect of a spell. If you don't do this, you don't get the benefits of the spell, you'd just be throwing an ordinary stone.
In the case of Chain Lightning, the entry listed for the Range of the spell is not completely ignored or overwritten. It is used during the initial targeting process of the casting of the spell. The specific vs general exception comes from the fact that the additional targets of the spell effect (after the spell has already been cast) do not use that Range, they explicitly use different parameters -- mostly because the source of those 3 additional bolts of lightning do not come from the spellcaster or the actual casting of the spell, they come from the initial target, so the initial Range cannot be used. The effect of these additional bolts are clearly directly targeting a creature or object.
I'm sure that there might be exceptions, but in general, you can tell if a spell or ongoing spell effect directly targets a creature if it: 1) Is not an AoE spell AND it either . . . 2A) involves making a spell attack OR . . . 2B) describes an effect being directed at or to or towards a creature and that creature gets a saving throw.
Notice that Catapult does not meet the above design concept that is almost universally used in all spell descriptions, but Magic Stone and Chain Lightning do.
Hopefully this helps to clarify some of my earlier comments.
I am not one of the authors of official Dungeons and Dragons 5e content, so I did not write any of the rules. You can make assumptions about whatever you want I guess -- assumptions don't really mean anything. The design patterns of how spells for the game are written can be observed simply by reading the published materials. This wasn't a quote of a rule, it was an observation about how spells are written.
Speaking of quoting a rule, as a point of fact, out of the 34 posts or so that you've contributed to this thread you have quoted a rule exactly twice. So, whatever point you think you keep making about what the rules really say has become ineffective. I would need to actually see something from the Rules as Written that aligns with your ideas in order to be convinced of your interpretation of the Rules as Written.
Apparently, I still have some unresolved criticisms. Let's address them.
The primary criticism of my argument is that Booming Blade is an AoE spell, and therefore it must target the point of origin, which is at self because the range is self. This criticism places greater importance on the interpretation of AoE rules than on the need for the spell to affect the target with its magic, as explicitly stated under targeting rules. But what's the support for the point of origin always being the target? It’s based on implications from AoE rules, not on any explicit rule.
To clarify, let's delve into the range of spells, specifically those with a range of self.
The PHB states:
Case closed, right? Range of self targets self… Or does it? Let’s continue:
So, the range of self means the target is self… or alternatively, the point of origin is self. But isn’t the point of origin always a target? That’s the argument, but if they were effectively the same, why would the rules need to list alternative scenarios for spells with a range of self? Unless they aren’t the same…
Jeremy Crawford clarifies this:
He clearly differentiates between these two scenarios, which aligns with why the rules list them separately despite having the same range specification. Booming Blade falls under the latter category, where the caster is the point of origin but not the target. The target is the creature attacked, as per the spell description:
Therefore, according to the rules, the range of self makes the caster the point of origin, but the detailed description of Booming Blade specifies that the attacked creature is the target.
This addresses the core issue, so what's remaining is Catapult. I honestly don't understand why you think Catapult is a bad example but Chain Lightning is a good one. As I read through your description of everything good about Chain Lightning, I couldn't help but think at every point, “You mean like Catapult?” It initially targets something in range, like Catapult. It then specifies additional targets with a different specified range, like Catapult. They use different range parameters because you are not the source of the attacks, like Catapult. The only thing Chain Lightning has that Catapult lacks is phrasing like “target the other targets.” It's otherwise identical.
I also wonder what exactly you think happens practically with the Catapult spell. “I'm going to target this object and launch it in… a completely random direction… maybe it will hit something!” Or do you think you can actually aim it at a target?
I will say that in a prior thread about a similar topic, someone suggested the "invisible pixie protocol" or something along those lines -- if the spell you're casting would also hit a gaggle of invisible pixies swarming around your main target, then you can't treat the spell as having a single target
I'm not sure I fully buy into it, but using that guideline would eliminate the chance of metagaming where you attempt to cast fireball with War Caster against one target and your DM says, "Err, no, you can't, but I can't tell you why"
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'll have to actually cite another example of a player being forced to nerf their own spell in order to use it in a specific situation for me to really say
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)
Why do you think there's a conflict here? If you are attempting to affect an area with magic then you target the origin point for an area of effect. You succeed in affecting the area with magic. If a creature happens to be in that area, it might be affected depending on what the spell says about the effect of the Area of Effect that's been created by the spell.
Besides the fact that it's the only option given "for an area of effect" in the rules for Targets . . . it also boils down to the questions in my previous post that I hoped some people would attempt to answer. If you don't target the point of origin, how exactly do you expect the Area of Effect to materialize exactly where you want it to or even to materialize at all? I'll answer my own Bonus Question here as well as I feel like it's helpful at this point: The one and only thing that casting an Area of Effect spell actually does is to create an Area of Effect. That's it. Whatever happens after it's created is not related to the casting of the spell.
Ok, this is good, it feels like we're getting somewhere here. Let me explain this.
In the first bit that you quoted which used Shield as an example, they are NOT talking about AoE spells. Spells like shield directly target a creature, so there is no point of origin. In that case, when the Range is "self" then the target MUST be the spellcaster since it's just a spell that targets a creature and the target must be within range.
In your second rule that you quoted, they are referring to an AoE spell that explicitly says in its text that the Cone originates from you. The example for this is Burning Hands. In those spells, there is a point of origin, which is the spellcaster himself in this case because the spell says so. Range for Burning Hands is "self (15-foot-Cone)".
The distinction here is that the AoE spell doesn't have to be pouring straight out of the spellcaster's body if the text doesn't say so. In the case of Booming Blade, for example, the point of origin is not the spellcaster himself, it's the spellcaster's location. The AoE is created by the brandishing of a weapon that the spellcaster is holding and it radiates outwards from that point in space (obviously this detail is not in the text -- it's inferred by the spell parameters) -- which, speaking in terms of 5-foot grid squares, the origin is located at the same grid square that the spellcaster is standing on. In this way, it's different from your first rule that used Shield as an example because this option is not possible for Shield since Shield is not a spell that has a point of origin so it cannot target a point in space.
JC just butchered this explanation, that's all. In his mind he knew that there was something slightly different about "self (area)" spells vs "self" spells and that it involved the fact that there is a minor choice about what exactly the target is . . . but then he seemingly couldn't remember the details and started talking about targeting affected creatures, which is wrong. He is speaking off the cuff in a live interview with no books in front of him, these things happen.
Honestly, the Catapult thing just isn't very important. The discussion above is much more pertinent for understanding how the Booming Blade spell works.
Hope that helps!
There is nothing that says you need to target the point of origin for an AoE. Take slow, for example:
The AoE is a 40-foot cube. Where is the point of origin? That’s in the AoE rules:
So, the point of origin is basically a point of your choosing on the perimeter of the AoE. But what were the targets again?
Clearly, the six creatures are the targets; it couldn’t be any more clear. It says it right there. So how can you make an AoE without targeting the point of origin? By targeting the creatures within the AoE. If you can do it with slow, why not other AoE spells?
AoE spells create an effect within a specified area. The point of origin determines where this effect starts, but it doesn't necessarily need to be the target. The spell’s description specifies the targets, which can be creatures, objects, or points within the AoE.
Another thing, the point of origin concept isn't limited to AoE spells. It applies to all spells. For instance, Magic Missile originates from the caster and hits targets within range. There's nothing particularly special about the point of origin such that it must be a target of the spell. It is simply "a location from which the spell’s energy erupts."
Essentially your argument against my 'distinct scenarios' point is that they have an immaterial difference which is why they're listed separate. This doesn't seem plausible. If that were the case, it should say this:
This compared to what's actually in there:
It seems quite more obvious that they are separated as distinct examples because they are distinct in what is targeted.
Your interpretation that the AoE of Booming Blade is created by the brandishing of a weapon and radiates outwards from that point in space, inferring this detail from the spell parameters, is not supported by the actual text of the spell. The spell description is clear and explicit about what is targeted and what is affected:
The spell specifically designates the target of the melee attack as the one who becomes sheathed in booming energy. There is no mention of an AoE radiating outwards from the weapon or the caster. In fact, this detail about the AoE and its supposed point of origin being inferred from the spell parameters is an extrapolation that is not grounded in the spell's actual description.
Oh, sorry my mistake. I didn't mention this wasn't JC from the Video... This is JC from Twitter or X. He was not doing this on the fly, which is why he included a page reference for the rule.
https://x.com/jeremyecrawford/status/606193562317766656?lang=en
I've already said my final words, but since I'm still subscribed to this thread, I've been reading the latest posts. I would like to add a tweet from the Dev related to the debate that I forgot to include in my previous message.
On mobile so have to be brief.
Regarding Slow, that's one of about a half dozen spells that uses Target incorrectly. The spell targets a point of origin for an AoE that "alters time around" creatures. The affected creatures must be selected because there could be more than 6 of them and the AoE is not powerful enough to affect them all. Similar to Booming Blade.
Your mention of Magic Missile misunderstands the concept. The source of the spellcasting and the point of origin for an Area of Effect are two different things. Range is the max distance from the source to the Target. The point of origin is the Target, even when it's self. The origin tells you where the AoE materializes which can happen anywhere within range. Only AoE spells have a point of origin.
Your rule example for distinct scenarios misses the point of that rule. The first paragraph is just explaining the difference between range of touch and range of self -- those are not AoE spells, they don't have a point of origin.
Your confusion with Booming Blade (one of them anyway) is that you are confusing the Target of a non-magical attack mentioned as part of the Area's effect with the Target of the actual spell. This is a perfectly fine usage of Target, it's just that this is the Target of an attack, not the target of the spell.
More later.
None of those involve nerfing your own spell in order to be able to cast it
If you can't come up with another example, that should tell you something
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 honestly have no idea what the rules for opportunity attacks and Haste effects have to do with this conversation.
Fireball explicitly targets a point in space (chapter 10).
The saving throw clause is fine. It just doesn't mention anything about AoE spells.
The rule for a Cone is totally consistent.
Yes, I agree we should use reading comprehensive to determine what is "meant" when the word Target is used. This means that we don't automatically assume that it's using the technical, mechanically significant usage when deciding how it might interact with other Feats and Features.
Tweets are not Rules As Written.
My mistake. I mixed up our conversation about rules you are quoting to support your position on things like Targeting, Ranges and Areas of Effect with a seperate conversation you were having with someone else about something else. No wonder those examples made no sense!
I have been honest the whole time about the Targeting concept. I mentioned right away that there are problems and inconsistencies in the rules that shouldn't be there. The general rules in Chapter 10 which actually define and explain how targeting works in the game present the concept clearly and consistently. About 95% of the rest of the game is very carefully written to remain consistent with the concept that is defined in those general rules. A very small number of rules, game features and spells which are in the process of explaining a totally separate concept happen to use the term in a lazy, catch-all, common language way that is inconsistent with the technical, mechanically significant way that the game defines them. None of those are written in a manner that suggests that they were intentionally attempting to override the general rules via a specific vs general reexplaining of the game concept. The word is just thrown in where it shouldn't have been in a few places.
Is it your position that the entire set of published material is currently perfectly written? That every single mistake has already been corrected via errata and so we should expect no more errata ever again?
Acknowledging inconsistencies and rules conflicts in the rules is one of the purposes of this forum so that DMs can discuss how to resolve them. "The rules say what they say" is only step 1. When they actually say things that are in conflict then step 2 is deciding what to do about it.
I can't help but think you're attempting to make yourself right by default with the number of rules you're hand-waving as "in error." You need to prove your assertion, not just reassert your position and call it good. Your whole position is begging the question. You assume your stance and dismiss any rules that conflict with it. The only consistency with the "erroneous" rules is that they conflict with your interpretation, an interpretation that's yet to be justified with any clarity.
Let’s talk about what the point of origin is. The point of origin is "a location from which the spell’s energy erupts." Every spell has this because every spell has magic energy that comes from somewhere. It can come from you, the environment, or a chosen target (which can also be you if you choose). Generally, we don't care where the point of origin is when it comes to spellcasting mechanics, but for AoE, it's relevant because it determines the positioning of the AoE.
For example, many people mistakenly assume that Thunderwave is a 15-foot cube with you at the center. But this is wrong and effectively nerfs the AoE to a 5-foot radius with a range of self, like Thunderclap. The AoE rules tell you how to position the cube by starting with the point of origin as a reference point. Based on this, the cube can be in any position where a border is adjacent to your square. This makes the point of origin relevant to AoE, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist for other spells. Magic Missile originates from you, so the point of origin is you. We don't even know where the point of origin for Silvery Barbs is because it only says you distract a creature momentarily, not specifying a location; but that's ok because it's not relevant for the mechanics of the spell.
There is nothing that tells you that you must target the point of origin. You asked me, "If you don't target the point of origin, how exactly do you expect the Area of Effect to materialize exactly where you want it to or even to materialize at all?" I answered: in the same way Slow reads. The AoE is created from the point of origin, and the energy of the spell erupts from that location. The creatures within are targeted for the spell's effects.
Slow is a perfect example of this. The point of origin is a point of your choosing on the perimeter of the AoE. The spell explicitly states that the six creatures are the targets. This demonstrates that the point of origin and targets can be distinct, and the spell functions as intended without targeting the point of origin.
I have cited the rules to support my interpretation, while you have dismissed the rules as written without providing clear justification. This highlights the need for a consistent and rules-based approach to interpreting spell mechanics. Something that you unfortunately lack.
The first paragraph is not merely distinguishing the two, it's defining the two. One thing I noticed about these rules is that they do not start with the range terminology and define it, they start by describing what the spells do and tell you what that means for the range. In other words, the mechanics of the spell are defined by the effect and the range is made to accommodate that effect. That being the case, then it would be more proper to interpret the targets based on the effect and then see how it interacts with the range. This is what the creators did with Booming Blade. They noticed that the original spell was in error and came up with an errata to change the range. Why the range? Because the old range was not properly limiting the spell as they intended. But in order for them to conclude this, they would have needed to prioritize the spell effect rather than the range. It seems you're doing the opposite with your interpretive method.
Concerning Booming Blade, I find it interesting that you assume the attack is non-magical even though it clearly has magical effects applied to it. Let’s break down what the spell says:
So what... It's a completely non-magical attack with a magic effect? Or... is it a magical attack made through your normal weapon attack? It seems the latter is more consistent with the wording in the spell. The phrasing indicates that the melee attack and the magical effect are not separate events but rather parts of a single action facilitated by the spell. The creature hit by the melee attack becomes sheathed in booming energy as a direct consequence of the spell, not as an incidental effect.
By arguing that the attack is non-magical and that the creature hit is not the target of the spell, you are overlooking the integrated nature of the spell’s mechanics. The melee attack and the magical effect are part of a unified action described in the spell’s text. Therefore, the target of the spell is indeed the creature hit by the weapon attack, as it is the entity that becomes sheathed in booming energy due to the spell's effect.
This interpretation is consistent with the rules on spell targeting, which state that the spell’s description determines the target. In Booming Blade, the description clearly indicates that the target of the weapon attack becomes the target of the spell’s magical effect.
Also, to supplement my point, I'll call back to the quote provided by tarodne:
JC is telling you the intention behind the two paragraphs with distinct scenarios. He says the second paragraph does not specify the target in the category in the second of the two we looked at, and this was intentional. At this point, you can only say this is wrong by calling JC a liar. He stated the intention, he obviously would know the intention... So either he's correct or he's lying. Which is it?
Wait, what are you talking about here? Points of origin in and of themselves have nothing to do with how the Range of a spell is defined. The Range of a spell is the maximum distance between the source of the spellcasting and the target (the destination) of the spell. It's how far the spellcasting process can travel before it must take effect someplace. When the definition of the Range says this:
That can't be the mistake. This literally is the rule for Ranges. This is where the term is defined and explained. Anything in the game that references "the Range" of a spell has to refer back to this definition.
If instead you are actually talking about the targeting rules, that's the same story. The rule literally is that you target the point of origin for AoE spells. Anything else in the game that references the target of an AoE spell has to refer back to this definition.
That's the problem with that DMG table. That table is about something else. The entire point of that section in the DMG is to offer guidance or suggestions to a DM who is running a game using a Theatre of the Mind style of gameplay instead of a Miniatures and Grid System style of gameplay. That's an entirely separate topic that's being discussed. In the course of explaining what to do about that particular topic, they happen to use the word "Target" in a way that is assumed to reference back to a general rule. But, that version of a general rule that's being referenced does not exist. The rule says something else. That's what make the usage of the word in that DMG table an error. Honestly, that is so self-explanatory that it's baffling to me that so many in this thread are having trouble grasping this, but I'm just assuming that that's because I haven't chosen just the right, precise enough words to fully explain it to create that "Ah ha" moment for people yet.
I mean, sure, in and of itself it's ok if we come to different conclusions.
But just to be clear: What you are proposing is to completely ignore and/or reject the entirety of Chapter 10 in the PHB which is the content which provides all of the general rules, important terms and game concepts for how to cast a spell for the whole game. Instead, you want to rely on a couple of side rules and a DMG table whose purpose is to explain a different aspect of the game and which attempts to merely reference back to the general rule for targeting and you want to apply the usage of the term which about 5 out of 100 spells that are all trying to say the same thing actually use and you want to say that THAT must be the rule for targeting in D&D 5e.
That's certainly a different conclusion than mine. But I am going to stick with my conclusion which is to use the general rules that are given, established, defined and otherwise fully explained in Chapter 10 of the PHB and I am going to recognize the small handful of places throughout the whole game that are simply trying to refer back to those rules and are doing so incorrectly. I will read and recognize what those texts are "trying to say" without getting too hung up on the one word that wasn't used appropriately.
Furthermore, just because one rule makes a reference that refers back to a general rule doesn't make that some sort of exception to the rule. If the reference refers back to a rule that doesn't exist instead of the rule that does exist, then that is simply an erroneous inconsistency in the rules. There are plenty of these remaining in 5e which have not yet been addressed via errata. That is what it is. It's the DM's job to make the "best" possible ruling given all of the information that he has on the subject.
My assertion has been proven endlessly and exhaustively at this point, fully supported with quotes taken directly from the rulebooks dozens of times now. I invite you to go back and reread the thread from the beginning and notice how many times I have directly quoted the rules and how few times I have quoted various tweets and verbal conversations.
This is completely and totally incorrect and this concept is pretty important. The correct, fully quoted rule is this:
No, every spell does NOT have this. Because not all spells have an Area of Effect. This rule comes from a subsection called Areas of Effect which discusses the thing that is created by a subset of all spells -- the AoE spells.
What your above train of thought is referencing is the source of the spell -- in other words, where the spell is being cast from. Spells are always cast from a spellcaster or from a magic item (I can't think of any examples of any other way that a spell can be cast). The Range of a spell specifies the maximum distance between where the spell is cast from, to where the spell is cast TO. The Area of an AoE spell is the Area of Effect that is created by casting the spell -- it is created at the place where the spell is cast TO.
The source of a spell has absolutely nothing at all to do whatsoever with the Area of Effect that some spells might create.
Think of watching someone casting a spell as being similar to watching 4th of July fireworks. When a firework is shot out of a cannon, you see a rocket propel higher and higher into the sky. But it can only go up so high before it explodes into a sphere of sparkly flames. The source of the firework was the cannon. The maximum height would be the range of that firework. The firework can only target that point in the sky if there is a clear path between the cannon and that point in the sky. The sphere of sparkly flames is the Area of Effect that is created at a point of origin at the center of the sphere, high up in the sky -- the upper edge of that sphere could extend beyond the range. That spot was targeted by the cannon. If a bird happens to be flying through that area at that time, it might be affected by the sphere of sparkly flames, but it was not targeted. The target was a point in the sky where the cannon was aiming and where the firework erupted. Now consider that other kind of firework that just creates a loud boom and maybe a flash of light but no sphere of sparkly flames. Now let's assume that the cannon moves and automatically tracks a bird flying across the sky -- the cannon takes aim directly at that bird and this particular type of firework only explodes if it directly impacts that bird at the moment prior to exploding. Now you have a spell that directly targets a creature and does not have an AoE, like Magic Missile. Hopefully in either of these cases the cannon never tries to target "self" or there'd be a pretty big problem.
This is false. Magic Missile does not have a point of origin -- it does not create an Area of Effect. It's important to use game terms the way that they are defined in the game, not in a loose, descriptive manner with a colloquial, every-day usage. Otherwise, people might think that you actually target creatures that are affected by an AoE, for example.
Yes, there is. But only for AoE spells. Because other spells don't have a point of origin. For AoE spells, you target:
What? This makes no sense. It really feels like there is a really big misunderstanding of what an Area of Effect is here. It has nothing to do with where the spell was cast from. So . . . "the AoE is created from the point of origin, and the energy of the spell erupts from that location." From WHAT location, exactly?? You never selected a location! That's the point. Do you think that your Fireball just knows about the perfect place to explode all by itself? That's why an explicit example of this is given right in the general rules of Chapter 10, to explain this very concept:
Slow is a tricky spell because the selection of specific creatures to affect is involved. This limits the overall power of the spell. If there happen to be more than 6 creatures located within the AoE then that AoE can only actually affect up to 6 of them, but it's the spellcaster's choice in this case which 6 (or fewer) are affected. Although you are selecting 6 of the creatures (in the sense of "out of all of the available creatures, I choose this one instead of that one" or "I choose this one and I don't choose that one"), you are not actually targeting them. For this reason, the word "target" is used in a manner that is inconsistent with the general rules and is therefore an error. But it's not nearly as obvious of an error as the one in the text for Fireball.
The spell is an AoE spell that targets an area (via its point of origin). If the spell had said "you target up to 6 creatures within range" or even "you cause up to 6 creatures within range to become sluggish", then we'd be talking about a spell that targets those creatures. But as soon as you are talking about a spell that creates a certain area in which things happen, you are now targeting the area with the spell, not the creatures. "You alter time around . . . creatures . . . in a 40-foot cube [ that is located ] within range." It's an AoE spell.
This is just silly. I have quoted the rules an outrageous number of times in this thread.
I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make here. Of course the spell effect and the range have to coordinate with each other. That's my whole point! You don't create a spell like Magic Missile and then give it a range of "self" and you don't create a spell like Shield and give it a range of 150 feet. These have to work together. The effect of the spell describes what happens to the target and the Range tells you how far away that person, place, or thing can be.
Who knows what the intentions of the creators really were when they changed the Booming Blade spell via errata. And who cares? Their intentions don't matter. The fact is that the changes that were actually made were to the range of the spell, the creation of a defined size and shape of an Area of Effect, and a reference to that area in the spell description instead of a reference to the range (Remember, the text "within Range" was changed to "within 5 feet"). What these changes actually DO is that they fundamentally change how the spell actually works in all of the ways that I've described several times in this thread.
It's neither. The magic effect is caused by the Area of Effect. The conditional triggering event that causes this is a successful normal melee weapon attack made within the hard-coded defined area of this AoE by the particular weapon (magical or non-magical) that was used as a spell component in the casting of the spell. The attack itself is not an attack from the spell.
The relevant text from the spell description is:
This is getting into the weeds a little bit, but there are basically 4 categories of attacks that exist in the game:
1) A melee weapon attack
2) A ranged weapon attack
3) A melee spell attack
4) A ranged spell attack
The only attacks that involve the spell making an attack a.k.a. the spell actually targeting a creature are categories #3 and #4. Those will always use those three words in that exact combination in any spell description which does this. An example of this is Shocking Grasp. Not an AoE spell. It involves making a melee spell attack. That spell targets a creature with an attack. Booming Blade does not.
This is the correct premise but the wrong conclusion. Yes, the attack and the subsequent effect on the creature are part of a unified action. But the target of the spell is NOT the creature hit by the weapon attack. The target is the location of the weapon's brandishing which spawns an Area of Effect which affects the creature within the Area when and only when that creature is hit by the attack from that weapon.
Yes, the spell's description, which includes all of the spell's parameters, determines the target of the spell. No, your interpretation is not consistent with the rules on spell targeting. In Booming Blade, the description clearly indicates that the target of the weapon attack becomes the affected creature of the spell's AoE which was created by casting the spell at the spellcaster's location.
Generally, there is no need to respond to the content of a tweet since tweets are not the Rules As Written, but quite obviously there is a 3rd option besides "he's correct" or "he's lying" which is obviously that "he is mistaken".
As a small grievance, I’m sure you’re responding to my post piece by piece. However, it is annoying to see you respond to something saying, “you never addressed X,” only for me to address it in the very next quote you take from me. It would be appreciated if you tried to understand my post as a whole before taking it apart.
What I was specifically addressing was your hand waving of the wording in the Slow spell. That should have been obvious from the context of that quote you snagged out of that paragraph. You had no basis, no citation to suggest such aside from its conflict with your interpretation. But dismissing written rules is not using RAW.
I understand that this citation is particularly talking about AoE, but I would say this is because it’s only mechanically relevant to AoE. The point of origin itself is clearly defined as “a location from which the spell’s energy erupts.” Every spell would have such a thing. If you want a citation for that:
So clearly under the definition of a spell, it says it has magical energies. Presumably, there is a location from which this energy ‘erupts’ or manifests and releases. But as I said, it’s only mechanically relevant for AoE. Since chapter 10 is mostly explaining play spell mechanics, it makes sense to define it in the only section that’s relevant to it. But if we take this for what it says, It is only saying AoEs have a PoO, not that they exclusively have one. Also, I’m clearly not talking about the source meaning casting location. I’m talking about where the energies manifest and erupt or flow outward, meaning the point of origin.
Notice how you didn’t cite anything that says, “the point of origin is always the target when you cast a spell with an AoE.” Just unproven assertions.
It is a little ironic to hear you say that after what you said about catapult… Do you think the object you launch just decides where to land on its own? But I’ll address the substance of this in the next quote (because I read your post before responding to it).
The point I was making was that AoE spells can work, without targeting the point of origin, in the same manner that Slow works RAW. You designate a point of origin somewhere within range to designate your AoE. After doing so, you target creatures within the AoE. As you said, Slow is a special case because it has limited effect in the AoE. So typically, creatures would automatically be targeted if they’re in the AoE. Such is the case with Fireball if you look at it RAW instead of hand waving it. I know you point out that spell targets the point of origin, but I think it’s obvious that spells can have multiple targets. So it can target both the point of origin and the creatures inside. After all, it’s not like you’re aiming for the point of origin just to hit it… You’re aiming for the point of origin to position the AoE so you can hit creatures with the spell.
My point is that you seem to prioritize the range parameter over the wording in the spell effect. The method of interpretation that would be more proper is to look at the spell effect and see how the range accommodates or limits it. Range self (5-feet) can still target something within 5 feet because it is within the range (5 feet). “But this isn’t the range…” It’s in the range block. RAW, it’s within range.
Notice that the point of origin is not called the target. Which brings us to JC, who said this was intentional… Your claim that “he’s clearly mistaken” misses the point I was making. He would know the intention because he was part of the design team. He literally can’t be mistaken because these are the words he is the originator of. It baffles me to no end you sitting there saying, “we may never know what the intention was,” as if these books just popped up out of nowhere. JC would know the intention of these rules. You have the intention handed to you from the horse’s mouth yet you still dismiss it. What would it take to admit you’re wrong about this? Divine intervention?
Ok, if this was just a criticism of my analysis of the Slow spell then that's my mistake. I assumed that you were commenting about my total position about all of the general rules for spellcasting. I've subsequently gone into more detail on the Slow spell in my Post #179 so hopefully your questions on that are now answered.
You've come to the wrong conclusion here and I've underlined the places where you've gone wrong. You are making a presumption about how the system works that simply is not in the rules. In fact, every spell does not have such a thing. In 5e, the term "point of origin" means something specific when it comes to the general rules for spellcasting. It is the starting point for an Area of Effect that a spell creates, which then expands from that point to fill the defined space. Even though the words "point of origin" might logically mean something else in the every-day world, we cannot just apply our own definitions.
A spell like Magic Missile doesn't have an Area of Effect -- it directly targets a creature with the spell. When the spell reaches that target, only the target is affected by the spell. When the target is a creature, nothing is erupting to fill any sort of space. You aim at the creature, and it is adversely affected by the magical energies as defined by the spell and that's it. There is no point of origin involved there.
Furthermore, a spell like Magic Missile cannot target a point in space. For a typical spell you never actually have a choice about which of the 3 categories of targets you may choose. Remember the rule: "A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets [ a person, place or thing ]".
This has been fully explained several times. It says it in the rule for Targets:
The correct way to read this is that the spell's description (which includes all spell parameters) tells you which category the spell targets and you pick a specific target within those valid choices to be affected by the spell's magic. If the spell targets a creature, you must choose a specific creature from among all available creatures within Range. If the spell targets an object, you must choose an object from among all available objects within Range. If the spell creates an Area of Effect, you must choose a point of origin for an area of effect that is within Range.
Furthermore, there is no mechanic in the game for an Area of Effect to appear anywhere other than to specifically target that location with your spell. It doesn't just happen by itself.
Ok, this is honestly frustrating as this has been covered many times now also. Catapult is NOT an AoE spell. It's a spell that targets an object. From among the 3 valid categories of a target, it is targeting the "thing" from among the list of "person, place or thing". That thing then flies in any direction up to 90 feet with no restrictions. It doesn't have to fly at anything. It could fly into an open field in which case the spell explains that it would fall to the ground. If something happens to be in the way then it would stop early. Nothing is targeted in this spell except the object. Remember the rule for targets:
Once the object is targeted, none of those three options applies. The spell is not telling you that you have to make the object fly at a creature or at an object or at a point in space. It simply flies in any direction. This is an effect that is placed on the object itself, not on anything else since nothing else is being targeted by this spell. And once again, this is not an AoE spell.
No, they can't. Not ever. This point you are making is wrong. The rules specify that the target of the spell is one of the 3 categories, based on what the spell description is telling you. When the spell creates an AoE, that spell targets a point of origin. There is no other way that that spell actually works.
Once again (yet again) this goes back to the concept that the one and only thing that an AoE spell actually does is to create the AoE.
A spell that says that it targets a creature only targets a creature -- it doesn't actually do anything else.
A spell that says that it targets an object only targets an object -- it doesn't actually do anything else.
A spell that creates an Area of Effect targets the point of origin so that the Area of Effect can be created -- it doesn't actually do anything else.
This goes back to the premise given in the rules for Targets, which explains that a spell is trying to affect a particular thing with magic. That's ALL that it does. It affects a person, place, or thing. When it affects a place, that's ALL that it does. The Area of Effect that is created there THEN might have some sort of interaction with creatures and objects that are within that area. The spell is not doing that. The spell creates the area. Chapter 10 explains all of this clearly and all of that has been quoted many times.
The only mechanic for doing this provided in this game is to target the point of origin. There are exactly zero spells in the game which explicitly override this mechanic.
Sure, the spellcaster is doing this. That's just good battle tactics. But the spell itself doesn't do this. The spell describes how it works to the spellcaster long before that spellcaster ever even attempts to cast the spell.
In modern warfare, grenades are not required to be thrown directly at or to come into direct contact with a creature in order to function. Their design is such that they are thrown at a point in space or onto some sort of surface or whatever and that is enough to create its effects. An area immediately surrounding the grenade's location where it explodes is negatively impacted by the explosion. If something happens to be in that area, it wasn't targeted by the grenade, but it is negatively impacted by what is happening to the Area around the grenade at that moment. A soldier who uses grenades might use this knowledge about how they work to his advantage. Compare this to a sniper rifle -- that weapon has to directly target a creature in order to be effective in the attempt to negatively affect that creature. That soldier would use that weapon in a different way and for a different purpose regarding what he is trying to affect.
Not at all. A spell's description is the entire block of information, including all parameters and text. The parameters and text must work together to properly describe the spell. Nothing is prioritized, it's all important information.
Ok. This argument is absolutely, positively, without any shred of doubt, 100% wrong. The reason for the emphasis here is two-fold. It has become a tiresome point to have to correct since this has popped up several times now. But more importantly, this concept is extremely important for anyone that wants to play the game in a manner that even resembles the RAW interpretation of the rules for the game.
As has already been explained, the older hardcopy books did not include a separate parameter line of text to describe the size and shape of an Area of Effect as standard formatting for every spell block. That's because a majority of all spells are not AoE spells so you would have had dozens upon dozens of lines of text which simply says: "Area: N/A". They save a couple of pages of book printing costs by just not including a separate line there and instead they tack this onto the Range parameter when needed. The more recent online entries of the spells explicitly list this parameter as Range/Area as a way of being super-duper extra redundantly clear that the first number is the Range of the spell, and the entity that describes a size and shape of an area in space is the description for an Area of Effect that is created by the spell.
Related to this -- since every spell has a Range listed in its parameters (even in the old hard copy versions), the text for the spell effect will always refer back to this with the phrase "within range". When you see the text of the spell effect refer to a hard-coded number, that is never a reference to the range of the spell. In many cases, that is describing the size and shape of an Area of Effect. It's not a distance from the source. It's a size and shape of an area that exists somewhere in space.
Let's again look at the very important rules that are related to this:
and
A spell that has a Range of "self (5-foot-radius)" creates a sphere with a radius of 5 feet that is centered at the spellcaster's location by targeting the spellcaster's location with the spell. A creature that is standing 5 feet away is within the area of effect but is not within the range of the spell. That's just what that parameter means. There is no alternate meaning.
As for your question, the effect that affects the target of Booming Blade is the creation of an Area of Effect at that location. This is in fact all that the spell actually does when it is cast.
If you are actually asking about what is the effect that affects the attack target that is mentioned as part of Booming Blade's spell effect, then that is a different story.
It's extremely important to remember that the rules which govern attack targets are different than the rules which govern spell targets. The rules for attack targets are given in Chapter 9 and the rules for spell targets are given in Chapter 10.
The effect that affects the attack target is an effect that is created by the Area of Effect that the creature is standing within -- that effect only affects that creature when certain conditions are met. Instead of that condition being a simple failed saving throw, like many other cantrips, that condition is being on the wrong end of an attack roll that is made by the particular specified weapon which was used to create the AoE.
Yes, it's complex, but everything about that explanation is valid and consistent with itself. Even the word "target" is used in a manner that is consistent with the rules -- but the key is to recognize that the word is referring to a Chapter 9 attack target, not a Chapter 10 spell target.
Honestly, even divine intervention won't do the trick in this case. I am 100% correct on how this works in 5e and I know it. I will take this thread to 1000 pages if it means keeping the correct information front and center for future readers. I offered the opportunity for us to all have our last remarks about our own interpretations without referring to why others in the thread are wrong -- that was a failure. I was repeatedly told that I was wrong and every time that that happens I will correct those falsehoods. I am now in this thread for the duration.
That's really not what I've said about Range and your conclusion makes no sense. The entire definition of what Range means is very simple: It is the maximum distance between the source of the spell and the target of the spell. That's it. By definition, targets must be referenced since that's what the Range of a spell actually means.
Once that definition of Range is established, later on in the rules we learn what it actually means to target something and what the 3 categories of a valid target are in the game. One of those is a point of origin. The concept of targeting cannot be separated from the concept of the point of origin because this is one of the 3 types of things that can be targeted.
Once that is established, later on in the rules we learn what the point of origin actually is, so that we can actually target an actual thing that is properly defined and described. There is no need to actually use the word "target" when discussing and defining what a point of origin actually is. It's already been established that we can target them.
None of this is a "mistake". These are what the general rules for spellcasting actually are. When other game Features and spell descriptions refer back to one of these terms, we must refer back to these general rules to understand what is meant when the term is used. If such a game Feature or spell description seemingly refers back to a term with an implied meaning that doesn't actually exist for that term, then that is the mistake, not the definition of the term itself.
What? No, that's exactly what the rules say. That's the whole reason why you have this one: "Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise."
The two rules that you quoted here are not at odds with each other at all. One of the three things that you can attempt to affect with your spell's magic is an area in space. You do this by targeting the point of origin for that area and that point of origin must be within range. At that point, the targeting process is complete and the spell has been cast and the size and shape for that Area that was created could extend beyond the range. If the created effect that now exists within the Area of Effect now interacts with a creature who is located within that area, then precisely how that creature is affected by it is described separately -- that's not part of the targeting of the spell. That's a description of what the created effect actually is and how it might affect things. The spell just creates the Area of Effect because that area is what you are attempting to affect with your spell's magic.
Actually, there's nothing wrong with Booming Blade's usage of the word "target" in its text. The key is to recognize that the word is referring to a Chapter 9 attack target, not a Chapter 10 spell target.
OK, I think the record here is clear. Nothing will convince you you're wrong. Not the authors nor even the books themselves. You extrapolate on the wording, then dismiss any rules that run contrary to that extrapolation as erroneous.
So I'll let the record speak for itself. You can go by RAW, or this guy's head cannon. You can accept some internet dude's interpretation, or the originators of the book itself.
This does remind me of what I said about whether dissonant whispers triggers the Thunder damage or not. Although I may have the opinion that it ought to trigger for the same conditions as opportunity attacks, I'm not going to say this is definitely RAW. And if you disagree, that's OK. Play how you want.