OK, I think the record here is clear. Nothing will convince you you're wrong. Not the authors nor even the books themselves.
This is correct. Since the books say exactly the same thing that I've been saying to the letter, it's impossible for the books to convince me that I'm wrong. The authors have made comments which are inconsistent with what the books actually say, so the best logical conclusion is that the authors were wrong when they made those comments -- this situation also will not convince me that I'm wrong.
You haven't defined what an erroneous use is, all we can do is put a rule up to your scrutiny and hope for you to deign us with an answer. Or guess that if it doesn't support your view you'll just say it is a mistake.
I actually have defined how I've been using this word in some of my recent posts. For simplicity, I'll just quote myself here:
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 makes the usage of the word in that DMG table an error.
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.
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.
So whatever. War Caster uses the same version of "target" that the "Targets of Areas of Effect" table from the DMG does. So there. Anything else is lies or homebrew. You cannot prove otherwise.
This is incorrect. The War Caster Feat talks about casting a spell "at the creature" and which targets "only that creature", which is only valid for non-AoE spells. This connotation for the word "target" is consistent with the general rules for spellcasting. The DMG Table uses the word "target" to refer to creatures which are affected by AoE spells, which is the connotation for the word "target" that is inconsistent with the general rules for spellcasting.
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. The problem is that you are correcting people based on your own guessing what is correct and incorrect about the rule book.
I have been instructed by the Moderation team to become more robotic in my answers. So, if your main bone of contention with my posts is with the style of my writing, then unfortunately there's not much that I can do about it.
Oh, I forgot the main point of my last post. Much earlier on, I had meant to share some research that I had done a while back when a similar forum thread was being discussed, but I had not been able to find my notes about it.
These are all of the AoE spells that I could find in whichever hardcopy version of the PHB I was using at the time. I can't remember if optional books such as Xanathar's was included in this list.
90 of these spells are carefully written in a manner that is consistent with the general rules for spellcasting.
8 of these spells make reference to the incorrect definition of a target.
It's a slightly higher percentage of all AoE spells than I was estimating, but not by much. This is still a very small percentage of all AoE spells. It's honestly impressive how many spell descriptions do go out of their way to avoid making this mistake. They will tend to say exactly the same thing, but they will simply use a phrase like "affected creatures" instead of "Targets". Obviously total speculation, but it just feels like there was one author on the team that wasn't on the same page (potentially JC himself, based on his comments) and this aspect of spell descriptions were not carefully vetted before publication.
Spells Consistent with the General Rules (90):
antilife shell antimagic field antipathy/Sympathy Aura of Life Aura of Purity Aura of Vitality Black Tentacles Burning Hands Call Lightning Calm Emotions Circle of Power Cloud of Daggers Cloudkill Color Spray Cone of Cold Confusion Conjure Barrage Conjure Volley Control Water Control Weather Cordon of Arrows Create or Destroy Water Creation Crusader's Mantle Darkness Daylight Delayed Blast Fireball Detect Good and Evil Detect Magic Detect Poison and Disease Destructive Wave Entangle Evard's Black Tentacles Fabricate Faerie Fire Fear Fire Storm Flame Strike Flaming Sphere Fog Cloud Forbiddance Forcecage Freezing Sphere Globe of Invulnerability Grease Guards and Wards Gust of Wind Hallow Hallucinatory Terrain Holy Aura Hunger of Hadar Hypnotic Pattern Ice Storm Incendiary Cloud Insect Plague Leomund's Tiny Hut Light Lightning Bolt Magic Circle Magnificent Mansion Major Image Meteor Swarm Minor Illusion Mirage Arcane Mold Earth Moonbeam Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum Otiluke's Freezing Sphere Private Sanctum Programmed Illusion Purify Food and Drink Pyrotechnics Resilient Sphere Reverse Gravity Shatter Silence Silent Image Sleep Sleet Storm Speak With Plants Spike Growth Spirit Guardians Stinking Cloud Sunbeam Sunburst Thunderwave Tiny Hut Web Weird Zone of Truth
Spells Inconsistent with the General Rules (8):
Arms of Hadar Fireball Circle of Death Mass Cure Wounds Phantasmal Force Prismatic Spray Slow Symbol
"Target" in War Caster talking about affecting a creature cannot be treated differently than "target" in the section from DMG which talks about affecting creatures. It is tautological. You cannot argue that they are different. First of all, because you're not the decider. Secondly, because they really really are in fact the same if they're both talking about hitting creatures with a spell. The only way you could hold that view is to presume the answer before you start.
Nope. It's not the same. War Caster doesn't talk about affecting a creature. The requirement for War Caster has been quoted:
you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature.
This meaning of "target" has nothing to do with an Area of Effect that might affect a creature. It says quite clearly that you must cast the spell at the creature and target only that creature. That is completely different from what the DMG table is talking about. The War Caster Feat is consistent with the rules. The DMG table is not.
In fact, neither War Caster nor the DMG table talks about a spell hitting a creature. War Caster talks about targeting a creature. Some spells might target a creature and require an attack roll, which could miss. The DMG table talks about creating an AoE and determining which creatures are affected by that effect. Totally separate concepts.
Of those 90 spells, how many call the point of origin the target?
What does this matter for anything in this discussion? No spells do this that I know of off the top of my head because they don't need to. This is already established in the general rules for spellcasting. You don't cut-and-paste the entirety of Chapter 10 into each and every spell description in order to make sure that the spell follows all of the rules. You put all of the general rules in one place and you simply refer back to them.
On the other hand, the general rules specifically state that the spell's description tells you which of the 3 categories is targeted by the spell. That's why the spell tells you that information. Whenever a spell (including its parameters) says that it's meant to affect an area with magic, the point of origin for an area of effect is targeted, as per the general rules. The spell itself doesn't have to specify that the point of origin is the target.
Because we know of the 98 spells you sampled, a significant portion (8%) use target one way, what you'd call "erroneous". What percent use the word "correctly"?
Again, to hold this view you have to presume the conclusion. Well, and misunderstand the statement. I used "hit" to avoid using another word that is in contention in this thread. I meant "affected by." Both of these examples mean "affected by" when they talk about being targeted. See below. Both identically are talking about affecting creatures, so if one is in error, they both are.
For example, if a wizard directs burning hands (a 15-foot cone) at a nearby group of orcs, you could use the table and say that two orcs are targeted (15 ÷ 10 = 1.5, rounded up to 2). Similarly, a sorcerer could launch a lightning bolt (100-foot line) at some ogres and hobgoblins, and you could use the table to say four of the monsters are targeted (100 ÷ 30 = 3.33, rounded up to 4).
I don't see your point here. This paragraph comes from the section of the DMG that has that table we've been discussing. All of the usages in that paragraph are erroneous. Neither of those spells (Burning Hands or Lightning Bolt) targets any creatures despite what this paragraph might imply. Both of those spells are AoE spells. Furthermore, neither of those spells even contains any text that refers to the creatures as targets in their spell descriptions. The spells themselves are written correctly:
Burning Hands: "Each creature must make a saving throw", "a creature takes fire damage" . . . No mention of any creatures being targeted.
Lightning Bolt: "Each creature must make a saving throw", "a creature takes lightning damage" . . . No mention of any creatures being targeted.
There are dozens of spells like this which are basically identical which use this wording instead of the wording used in Fireball. It's the wording that you quoted from the DMG that is erroneous because it's trying to refer to a rule that doesn't exist. The rule says something else.
I'm starting to wonder if maybe the issue is that you're not seeing the difference between a non-AoE spell and an AoE spell . . .
For non-AoE spells, you attempt to affect a creature with the spell's magic so you target that creature. Or, you attempt to affect an object with the spell's magic so you target that object.
For AoE spells, you attempt to affect an area with the spell's magic so you target the origin point for an area of effect. That has nothing to do with targeting creatures. You are attempting to fill up that area with a magical effect. When you cast the spell, that's what happens. The AoE is created and the area was successfully affected with the spell's magic. Once that is done, now you can look at the explanation for what happens when that effect interacts with a creature located within that area. The casting of the spell has nothing to do with that process. The effect is now sitting in that space, filling up that area. That existing effect indiscriminately causes some sort of affect to creatures that happen to be located there. The spell is not doing this. The spell has already been cast with the intention of affecting an area, not a creature.
Those are the general rules for spellcasting and 91.84% of all AoE spells were carefully written to successfully remain consistent with those rules. Hopefully that clears up any confusion.
This is correct. Since the books say exactly the same thing that I've been saying to the letter, it's impossible for the books to convince me that I'm wrong.
Every spell you claim is in error is a book reference that conflicts with your view. The rule in targeting is another example, which gets us to something I didn't respond to before but was actuality important.
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 doesn't seem you understand my point. “The creation of an AoE at that location” is not a magical effect that has an affect on the supposed target. Remember, you think the target of BB is self. Ch 10 targets are picked “to be affected by the spell’s magic.” Creating an AoE is not affecting the target with magic. You need to actuality point out an affect the spell has on the target. Of course it's continent upon success, but my point is BB does not affect self in any event with the spell's magic. Therefore your interpretation is not consistent with this general rule for targeting specifically in ch 10 (so I'm not confusing other targeting rules).
Another thing, there's an important spell that's notably absent from your list. Lightning lure. This one is important because it's very similar to BB, except without the melee attack included and range is extended to self (15- foot radius). Yet it still has an effect targeting the creature RAW. This seems to support the idea that BB is using the word target in a spell target sense, not merely a melee attack target sense.
This is correct. Since the books say exactly the same thing that I've been saying to the letter, it's impossible for the books to convince me that I'm wrong.
Every spell you claim is in error is a book reference that conflicts with your view.
Ok, it's true that I could have written that response a bit more accurately. What I mean to say there is that the rules in the books say what I've been saying. Not every single piece of text in the books align with what I've been saying -- that's impossible, because there are bits of text that conflict with each other on this topic. However, in this case it's an easy conflict to resolve. That's because the general rules on the topic are clear. But there are a few other places in the books, including in a few spell descriptions where the text there refers back to the rule, but it does so in a manner or context which implies that the rule that it is referring back to really says something other than what is actually there. In other words, the rule that is referred back to does not exist. Something else exists in its place which means something else. So, the reference is an error. I mean, it just is. That's not even really an interpretation, that's a fact.
For example, suppose you are reading an encyclopedia and when it talks about bicycles it makes a reference to a chart that talks about gasoline usage for various types of mopeds. It makes this reference in such a way and in such a context that it is heavily implied that standard bicycles actually consume gasoline. It's not actually saying so -- it's making a reference to other data where it is assumed that the bicycle will be listed as an entry with a nonzero value for usage alongside other gasoline using vehicles. It's making a reference to something that doesn't exist or is erroneous. That's an error, not an alternative interpretation. That's what's going on here. A reference is made that assumes that the general rule says something that it doesn't say, and instead it actually says the opposite. Hopefully additional metaphors for this concept won't be needed.
“The creation of an AoE at that location” is not a magical effect that has an affect on the supposed target. Remember, you think the target of BB is self. Ch 10 targets are picked “to be affected by the spell’s magic.” Creating an AoE is not affecting the target with magic. You need to actuality point out an affect the spell has on the target.
You're not getting the purpose of an AoE spell. One of the things that you can try to affect with your spell's magic is an area / volume in space. You want to try to fill up that space with the spell's magic. In order to actually do this, you target the point of origin for the area of effect with your spell when you cast it. The point of origin is usually a point in space, but it sometimes can be an actual creature, like in the case of Burning Hands. In that particular case, that creature IS the point of origin -- it's not a creature that is standing within the area of effect that is created. The effect radiates outwards from that creature. For Booming Blade the point of origin is a point in space. That point in space is placed within the range of self, which is required to be at the spellcaster's location. The spell's magic fills up a sphere surrounding the spellcaster's position, including the spellcaster's location. The area that is filled was the purpose of the spell -- that area is successfully filled with magic. That's the effect on the target -- it doesn't get any more magical than that. The area was empty. Now it is filled with magic. What more do you want when you are trying to affect (and therefore target) an area?
As it so happens, the spellcaster actually could be affected by this Area of Effect which was already created. To do so, he would have to successfully attack himself. That's because the point of origin for a sphere is included in the Area of Effect by default. But that's completely besides the point. Even if the spellcaster attacks himself, he was NOT the target of the spell. The target of the spell was a point in space. But that's completely besides the point also! That's because even if the spellcaster himself IS the point of origin for Booming Blade, targeting the point of origin only serves to create the Area of Effect. That's the purpose of the spell and that's what was targeted by the spell for that purpose. THEN, the spellcaster could be negatively affected by the effect that's now sitting there all throughout this area. The spellcaster STILL wasn't targeted by the spell in that case. He was just negatively affected by the Area of Effect. Just for my own sanity can someone please at least demonstrate that they get what I'm saying with explanations like this even if you somehow don't agree with them. Because every time an objection is made, it just seems like my explanation wasn't actually understood and a fundamental game concept is still being missed.
Another thing, there's an important spell that's notably absent from your list. Lightning lure. This one is important because it's very similar to BB, except without the melee attack included and range is extended to self (15- foot radius). Yet it still has an effect targeting the creature RAW. This seems to support the idea that BB is using the word target in a spell target sense, not merely a melee attack target sense.
Ok, I'm not very familiar with the content from Tasha's so nothing from there was on my list. But I looked up the Lightning Lure spell. There are definitely some similarities to Booming Blade.
You aren't going to like it, but this is another spell that isn't obviously written to describe it this way, but this is an AoE spell. A sphere of energy is created around the spellcaster, and this can be harnessed into a lash that's directed at a creature that is within the AoE. Even though the creature is selected to be affected, it should not have been described as being targeted.
Of critical importance for understanding this spell, notice that it has a range of self and a notation describing a size and a shape. Notice also that the text describes that the creature is required to be "within 15 feet of you". It does NOT say that the creature is required to be "within range", as all non-AoE spells would say that directly target a creature. When the number 15 appears in that hard-coded manner, it is referring to the size of an Area of Effect, not the Range of the spell.
This is where you lose credibility. That paragraph is in the rules and hasn't been corrected. That means we have to deal with its presence, not ignore it, in any rules analysis. Anything that ignores it as "erroneous" is itself erroneous.
You cannot ignore text from the rules and expect to make a valid argument.
You're not following what's going on here. No one has said that the rule in the DMG should be ignored. But that rule is about something else. There's good information in there about that other thing (which is, how to deal with Areas of Effect when running a Theatre of the Mind style game). In the context of trying to explain that other thing, that DMG rule references the general rule for targeting. The rule that it tries to refer to does not exist. It's like clicking on an old school broken internet link. We can see that there's text that's referring to a thing and that text has the hyperlink function activated. But when you click it, you are taken to a page where the information does not exist. Instead, some other totally different information is written at that website, making the context of how the hyperlinked word was used -- yep, erroneous.
I would say the spell effects are still part of the rules. Perhaps we could say they are specific rules, and you're claiming your interpretation is consistent with all the general rules.
For Booming Blade the point of origin is a point in space.
How exactly do you know it's a point in space? Weren't you saying before it's from the creature, or the creature's weapon? I don't see how you could gather that the point of origin is a location in space from this spell description.
The spell's magic fills up a sphere surrounding the spellcaster's position, including the spellcaster's location. The area that is filled was the purpose of the spell -- that area is successfully filled with magic. That's the effect on the target -- it doesn't get any more magical than that. The area was empty. Now it is filled with magic. What more do you want when you are trying to affect (and therefore target) an area?
First, literally all of that is an extrapolation. None of it is in the spell description, so none of it is RAW. Second, “filling the area with magic” doesn't explain how the effect of the spell is actual affecting the target. The spell has to have a “a specific, limited expression” (quote from first sentence in chapter 10) which is meant to affect the target when the magic of the spell. Not just vaguely say “the magic is there… being present!” The way it affects the target needs to relate to the spell description's effect. Show me RAW, not head cannon.
As it so happens, the spellcaster actually could be affected by this Area of Effect which was already created. To do so, he would have to successfully attack himself
This isn't helpful at all when comparing two interpretations: it targets self vs it targets the attack target.
A sphere of energy is created around the spellcaster, and this can be harnessed into a lash that's directed at a creature that is within the AoE
What was it you said before?
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… concerning Lightning Lure, there is no mechanic in the game for an attack to be directed at a chosen creature without targeting them.
I would say the spell effects are still part of the rules. Perhaps we could say they are specific rules, and you're claiming your interpretation is consistent with all the general rules.
Sure, the spell descriptions could be considered specific rules for the game. But what I'm saying is that if the word "target" is merely mentioned along the way within the spell description, that doesn't make that one word a whole rule in and of itself. You don't say, "Oh! I see how they are using that word in context here -- THAT must be the rule for targeting!" No, no, no. The word is simply referencing a rule that is supposed to exist in another Chapter. When a spell says "The target takes fire damage", that's not saying anything about targets or targeting. A person who doesn't know anything about the game might read that sentence and say, "what do you mean, target? What's a target? You forgot to define what that means." And then someone would tell you, "Oh, that's referencing the rule about Targets and targeting from Chapter 10." The problem that I keep explaining is that there is no such rule in Chapter 10. Chapter 10 does not have any rule whereby creatures who happen to be standing in an Area of Effect should be called targets. Targets are exactly one of 3 things. They are a creature that is directly targeted by a non-AoE spell, or they are an object that is directly targeted by a non-AoE spell, or they are a point of origin for an area of effect. They are never a creature who is the victim of collateral damage when the nearby area happens to become magical. That's just an affected creature. So . . . going back to those spell descriptions which use the word in a context that assumes that there is a 4th possibility for what a target is -- that's just an error in the way that the spell description was written, because it's referencing something that isn't there.
How exactly do you know it's a point in space? Weren't you saying before it's from the creature, or the creature's weapon? I don't see how you could gather that the point of origin is a location in space from this spell description.
This is just a guess based on what the spell says. Whenever you are talking about an AoE spell and therefore are talking about targeting a point of origin -- you don't actually know if the point of origin itself is a point in space or is a creature or even an object. You have to determine (guess) that from the description of the effect. Burning hands explicitly talks about flames shooting out of the spellcaster's body, so he is the point of origin. What's perhaps a little confusing is that the spellcaster is a creature and that creature would be the target of an AoE spell if he actually is the point of origin, but that's not really the same thing as a spell that targets a creature. It's still a spell that targets a point of origin -- but sometimes the point of origin is a creature. In the case of Booming Blade, it doesn't talk about flames shooting out of the spellcaster's body. It gives the otherwise unnecessary detail about brandishing a weapon. The only reason to give that detail is that the place where the weapon was brandished can act as the point in space where the AoE is created. Another possibility is that the spell is actually cast ON the weapon (an object), but this is unlikely because if the weapon moves, the entire AoE would move along with it. That's unlikely to be the correct interpretation for this spell. The spell says that the area of effect is "within 5 feet of you". It's likely meant to be a point in space at the spellcaster's current location which doesn't move. Again, that's just a guess.
The spell's magic fills up a sphere surrounding the spellcaster's position, including the spellcaster's location. The area that is filled was the purpose of the spell -- that area is successfully filled with magic. That's the effect on the target -- it doesn't get any more magical than that. The area was empty. Now it is filled with magic. What more do you want when you are trying to affect (and therefore target) an area?
First, literally all of that is an extrapolation. None of it is in the spell description, so none of it is RAW.
This is not extrapolation. This comes straight from the spell description. Some of the information for this is in the parameters and some of the information is in the text for the spell effect. The most important bits are "Range: self (5-foot-radius)" and then also where it says "within 5 feet of you" instead of saying "within range". This is literally the spell description telling you what the target of the spell is, just like the rules say that it must tell you this.
Second, “filling the area with magic” doesn't explain how the effect of the spell is actual affecting the target. The spell has to have a “a specific, limited expression” (quote from first sentence in chapter 10) which is meant to affect the target when the magic of the spell. Not just vaguely say “the magic is there… being present!” The way it affects the target needs to relate to the spell description's effect. Show me RAW, not head cannon.
This is all very clear in the rule for Targets. The premise of the rule starts out by saying that whenever you cast a spell, you target something that you intend to affect with the spell's magic. It then tells you that there are 3 things that you could be targeting. A creature, an object, or an area. If you are targeting an area, what more can you do? You can only take an ordinary area and fill it up with magic. That completes the casting of the spell -- that succeeds in its purpose. It's just not a spell that targets creatures or objects. It targets an area instead. Of course, the technical mechanism for actually targeting an area is to target its point of origin with the casting of the spell -- thereby satisfying the clear path rules and so on. The effect that is created within the area is what the spell DOES. This effect might then affect creatures, but that's not the spell's purpose. The spell's purpose was to affect an area -- one of the 3 possible things to affect with magic from the premise of the rule.
This isn't helpful at all when comparing two interpretations: it targets self vs it targets the attack target.
Ok, let's see. I think part of the confusion might be that there's really two different things going on which both use the words "effect" and "affect" to describe what's happening with them. Think of a creature being affected by a spell as a 2-step process. First, there is the process of targeting something with the spell. We aim the spell at a specific place so that whatever we are targeting becomes affected with magic. No matter if we targeted a creature or if we targeted an area, there is a moment when the spell arrives at it's target, from the source. This arrival creates a spell effect.
Now, for a non-AoE spell which just targeted a creature, there's not usually much more to think about. The creature is now affected by the spell in whichever way the spell says. However, this is not always so simple. Sometimes even a non-AoE spell could have a long duration. A spell might do something like afflict a creature with a Condition, such as Paralysis, which persists round after round. Now, every time a new round rolls around and that condition continues to affect the creature, we wouldn't say that the spell has targeted that creature again, right? The creature was only targeted once. It is now being affected round after round.
While this is uncommon for non-AoE spells, this sort of distinction basically always happens for AoE spells. That's because the spell effect that is created upon arriving at its target is that the magic erupts from the point of origin and fills a space. That's how the area is affected by the spell's magic. But now, the thing that just filled up that space is referred to as an Area of Effect. It's an area that has a spell effect within it. This can now passively interact with creatures who happen to be within the area in order to affect the creature. So, this is a second instance of using effect / affect, but we're talking about a separate thing. Sometimes, this spell effect can linger in this area for a long duration. If a creature wanders into it several minutes later, why would we consider that creature to be a target of the spell? The spell was cast a long time ago.
So, there's the effect that's created by the targeting process, and there's the lingering Area of Effect which could hang around for a while doing its thing. Obviously, you won't find the books going into this much detail -- they tend to keep their rules brief. But this is what's going on with spellcasting, particularly for AoE spells.
The point of all of that being -- the creature or point in space that is targeted by the AoE spell is a whole separate concept from the other creatures who might be affected by the actual effect that sits within the Area of Effect. Using the word "target" for both of these concepts just doesn't make sense. The word target is meant to refer to the destination of the spell being cast -- you cast it from the source to the target.
I promise that there really is a subtle difference with spells like Lightning Lure as compared to a spell like Magic Missile. But, if you really wanted to -- if you wanted to consider a couple of these spells such as Lightning Lure and Slow with that type of "select a creature" type of language and consider that to be some sort of specific vs general exception to the targeting rules, then it's probably not the end of the world for most purposes. There is a difference, but it's a lot closer to correct than for spells such as Fireball. For example, these spells still wouldn't be able to qualify for War Caster since that Feat requires the spell to be cast at the creature and the creature must be the sole target of the spell -- so a spell that targets a point of origin AND a creature cannot qualify.
This article Booming Blade 5e [DnD Spell Guide: Uses, Rules, Tips] is pretty good. It summarizes how Booming Blade works and includes links to Sage Advice and the Sage Advice Compendium to support the explanations.
Booming Blade works with the War Caster feat.
Booming Blade cannot be used with Reach weapons to attack targets more than 5 feet away.
Booming Blade cannot be used with the Spell Sniper feat.
A creature must move voluntarily to take Booming Blade’s secondary damage.
You cannot use the Twinned Spell metamagic with Booming Blade.
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
You don't think losing 59/60's of the duration of a spell is a nerf to it? And again, those other two are things where you don't get to do the thing you'd normally do.
No, because the duration is either case is still more than sufficient. You cast it normally and get one hour with concentration for non-combat situations, and cast it with a duration of one minute and no concentration for combat situations. The utility is comparable. You do know what "nerf" means, right?
If you want more examples just look at the invocations list for warlocks: Armor of Shadows, Chains of carceri, far scribe, trickster's escape all remove some part of the spell for using them with their special castings with these features. Or Horizon Walker's Ethereal Step.
OK, since you're still completely missing the point, let's go through them
armor of shadows: I would guess that somewhere north of 99 percent of mage armor castings, across all of 5e, are on yourself and not someone else. Not a nerf
chains of carceri: limiting the creatures the spell applies to is a nerf, OK. This one's also poorly written/conceived though
far scribe: no more a nerf than sending stones
trickster's escape: see armor of shadows, although freedom of movement would get used on someone else slightly more often than mage armor
ethereal step: well, yes, I'll give you this one too, but again only because the feature is poorly (lazily) worded. Rather than describing a one-round jaunt, they grabbed an 8-hour spell and said "this but way shorter"
More to the point, all your examples are also class/subclass features written specifically with those changes/limitations in mind for thematic reasons. They aren't ad hoc rulings on the interaction between two things. There's no thematic, or even logical in-game reason, why the splash damage from GFB would apply on one hit but not another
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)
At this point I think it might be important to build a case back up rather than break up your post point by point.
One vital premise in your position is that "range self (5-foot radius)" indicates an AoE. However, from what I've seen, an AoE spell always explicitly uses terms like line, cone, cube, or sphere in the description. The range block is not an indicator that the spell has an AoE; rather, the spell's effect is the typical place to find that information. This makes sense because it would describe an area of effect.
The obvious problem here is that Booming Blade doesn't have anything in its effect indicating an AoE. To the contrary, the spell's effect indicates that one creature within 5 feet, who is targeted by the melee attack, is the intended target of the spell. The "5 feet" here clearly refers to the range at which the caster can make the melee attack, not to an AoE. Similarly, with Lightning Lure, the 15-foot radius refers to the range at which you can attack the creature you target for the spell.
Another argument you make is that an AoE can't target creatures; it can only target the point of origin and affect creatures in the AoE. This is contrary to many specific spell descriptions that define targets within the AoE. You may claim it's a one-word slip-up, but it is persistent enough to suggest otherwise. Furthermore, there are also general rules to support this:
If you are in the area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself.
This is in the targets section of Chapter 10 under targeting yourself. It explicitly states that you can, in fact, target yourself with a spell you cast if you are in its AoE. This suggests the general rules for AoE spells do involve targeting affected creatures within the AoE.
The next issue concerns the need for targets "to be affected by the spell’s magic." I've used that as an argument as to why the target of Booming Blade cannot be self. This is connected to the issue of whether Booming Blade is an AoE, but essentially all attempts you've made to suggest self is affected by the spell have resorted to speculation. It's gotten to a point where you claim, "If you are targeting an area, what more can you do?" Putting aside the fact that you've admitted that you're speculating when you place the point of origin in a space within the caster's square, there are plenty of spells that affect a space.
Hypnotic Pattern:
You create a twisting pattern of colors that weaves through the air inside a 30-foot cube within range.
AoE spells can affect the space, but that's not the point really. The point is that the effect of Booming Blade explicitly intends to affect the attack target. This indicates that this creature is the true target of the spell.
Lastly, we come to the point of origin. We've gone over what point of origin is, but what I've pressed you on is the need to prove your claim that the point of origin of a spell must always be the spell's target (and apparently, must be the sole target). There are no explicit rules to support this, so you've essentially resorted to proving it by default by saying the player can only determine the location of the point of origin by targeting it with the spell. This works against you in the manner I pointed out with Lightning Lure, but even if you're absolutely right; this is completely moot because you don't choose the point of origin in cases of self (XYZ). The point of origin is fixed as described by the rules:
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 in the case of Booming Blade, you don't choose the point of origin and there is no rule that states it must be a target of the spell. Since the spell effect is applied solely to the attack target, we can conclude that this attack target is the intended target of the spell.
booming blade does mention a creature, so it automatically uses the first one in your definition: a creature directly targeted by a spell.
This is false. The spell's description tells you which category of targets we are talking about. We know this because there is a rule which says that:
A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect
But, what is a spell's description? One might ask? Well, since that might be a pretty important game term, perhaps this mention of the term in a certain context actually refers back to another rule where this is actually defined and explained (yup, sort of like that other term we've been talking about):
Casting a Spell
When a character casts any spell, the same basic rules are followed, regardless of the character's class or the spell's effects.
Each spell description begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.
The spell is written with the parameter "Range: self (5-foot-radius)" and explicitly describes affecting a creature that is "within 5 feet" of the spellcaster. This is quite literally the spell telling you what the target of the spell is. It's jumping up and down and screaming and waving big red flags and holding up a huge glittery sign. You don't get to pick which of the 3 categories of targets are used -- by rule, the spell's description tells you which type is targeted. When an area is targeted, you target the area. The purpose of the spell is to affect an area with magic.
Ah actually, you're exactly wrong here. In many ways. First, when the rules use words in more than one way, you actually do use context to tell what they mean. That's called reading comprehension.
You are making my point for me. This is how we know where the errors are in the books. Reading Comprehension. We can recognize when a spell description is attempting to use the term "target" in a different context than what is established in the rules. In doing so, such descriptions are referring back to a rule that doesn't exist. If we were unable to read and understand that the description is attempting to use the word with a different meaning then we would just say things like "welp, that's the rule!" instead of realizing that there is no such rule, and the word is being used incorrectly. The wrong meaning for the word was chosen because that's not the meaning that's consistent with the rules.
Second, your example about the confused individual will find that a target is listed as "to be affected by the spell's magic" and decide that probably if that is what the sentence is talking about.
Yeah, this argument just doesn't fly. We've been over this a ton of times now. The rule for targets is talking about what you are attempting to affect with the spell's magic at the moment that you are casting the spell -- it's part of the spellcasting process. You can try to affect a creature or an object or an area -- those are the 3 choices given. If you choose a spell that affects an area then that's what it does. You target a location for that area and the spell's magic fills it. Talking about a confused creature who wanders into an ongoing spell effect which is affecting the environment as intended, as having anything to do with what you intend to target with your spellcasting process is disingenuous. That's obviously not what the rule is saying. The text for the spell effect itself will describe what that lingering spell effect does to the environment and any creatures within it separately from the process which brings the spell effect into existence in the first place, which is the process that involves targeting the spell.
When casting the spell, the spell travels from the source to the target:
A Clear Path to the Target
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
When it arrives there, the spell effect is released:
A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies . . . In casting a spell, [ the spellcaster ] releases them to unleash the desired effect.
Once the spell is "released" (a term also used when Readying a spell), that spell is gone. The spellcaster has no more control from there. He was in control as he was targeting something with his spell. Then he casts it and it's released into the environment. The targeting process is done, the spell effect now does what it does. This is all in the rules, but it does require a bit of reading comprehension as you said.
Notice also that the clear path rule specifically prohibits a spell from targeting something that is behind total cover. But, a Fireball spell can still affect such creatures. How? Not by targeting them, that's for sure, since that would break at least two core rules of spellcasting (including that the target must be within range).
Third, your definition of 3 meanings of "target" are nowhere close to book accurate.
Ummm . . .
A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect
That sure looks like 3 meanings of target to me. This looks to me like the rule is that a spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect.
Because no one could guess what type of spell one is talking about from a sentence that doesn't mention a creature, area, or point of origin.
This doesn't matter at all. A spell sitting on a spell scroll does what it does. It's up to the Wizard who discovers it to study it, experiment with it and ultimately learn exactly what it is, what it does and how it works so that he can use it correctly.
Fourth, you make a requirement in your definition that seems to be purely invented: nowhere in the book does it mention anything about definitions applying to anything like "non-AoE spells" or even imply one should expect that is the case. There's no rules basis for that addendum.
Uhh . . .
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
This article Booming Blade 5e [DnD Spell Guide: Uses, Rules, Tips] is pretty good. It summarizes how Booming Blade works and includes links to Sage Advice and the Sage Advice Compendium to support the explanations.
This is some fine reading -- it's always fun to read about the game. But just keep in mind that this is an opinion by an author on a website. He does not quote most of the relevant general rules for spellcasting directly. Instead, he quotes a lot of tweets. It's just important to recognize that content like this is not Rules As Written. The Rules As Written are the rules as they are written.
I'll point out one portion of the article here:
Who Can I Target With Booming Blade 5e?
You can target one creature within 5 feet (melee range) with Booming Blade. While the range of the spell is listed as Self (5-foot radius), this was mainly done to prevent it from working with the Spell Sniper feat and reach weapons and other, more edge-case rules.
Yep, that's what he says about targeting. It says "yeah, sure, it says that the range is "Self (5-foot-radius)" but go ahead and ignore all of the rules which dictate how that spell parameter actually functions because this change was just made to prevent the spell from working in combination with some other game features.
That is incredibly absurd.
This is an example of -- yeah, so the common interpretation of how the spell works is like this . . . buuut, it really can't work that way so let's just pretend we didn't notice.
Just because something has become the common interpretation does not make it consistent with the Rules As Written.
One vital premise in your position is that "range self (5-foot radius)" indicates an AoE. However, from what I've seen, an AoE spell always explicitly uses terms like line, cone, cube, or sphere in the description. The range block is not an indicator that the spell has an AoE; rather, the spell's effect is the typical place to find that information. This makes sense because it would describe an area of effect.
I've already told you several times that there are actually two important indicators. The first is the Range parameter -- in the online versions of the spells they've done a pretty good job of updating this parameter -- the primary purpose is so that a user can quickly scan through a long list of spells and see right away which ones are AoE spells and which ones are not.
But the more important indicator is in the text for the spell effect. Whenever a spell actually targets something, it uses the phrase "within range". If instead a spell refers to something that is required to be "within 5 feet of you", now we are talking about a defined size and shape of an area with the origin at the spellcaster. All spells are carefully written in that style for exactly this reason.
The obvious problem here is that Booming Blade doesn't have anything in its effect indicating an AoE. To the contrary, the spell's effect indicates that one creature within 5 feet, who is targeted by the melee attack, is the intended target of the spell. The "5 feet" here clearly refers to the range at which the caster can make the melee attack, not to an AoE. Similarly, with Lightning Lure, the 15-foot radius refers to the range at which you can attack the creature you target for the spell.
There doesn't need to be anything perceptible in the area. The entire area is ready to interact with the exact place where the attack is made. That's the effect. Yes, the "5 feet" indicates a sort of "range" for the attack, only because you are at the center of the sphere and it extends outwards 5 feet from you and the creature must be within that space. It must be within 5 feet of you. This hard-coded numeric reference indicates the size of an area.
Ok, so I was in a hurry in my previous post and didn't get a chance to fully discuss Lightning Lure:
The thematic picture that they are going for with lightning lure is to use it like a stereotypical whip-like weapon which reaches out and grabs something and pulls it back in towards you. The most obvious way to design such a spell is to just declare that the spell has a range of 15 feet and that you target a creature "within range". You then declare that part of the effect is that the target creature is pulled 10 feet closer to you.
There's one small, subtle problem with this. Spell effects never refer to the source of the spell. This is consistent design throughout the whole game. The spell itself has no memory of its source. The spell is cast from the source to the target. When it gets there, the spell effect is released into existence. But it doesn't remember where it came from, in which direction or how far away. Because that's just not part of the spell effect. The spell effect is only concerned with what is going on at its target location. So, there is no way for the above spell to actually be written that way, because it wouldn't know in which direction to "pull" the creature.
So, what they did instead was to make the spellcaster's location known to the spell. You do this by casting an AoE spell ON the spellcaster or his location so that the origin point for the AoE coincides with the spellcaster's location. The AoE spell effect knows where its point of origin is, but it doesn't know where the spellcaster is. It just so happens that these are at the same place for AoE spells which have the "Range: self (area)" notation. This allow them to create a spell description that says that it "pulls the creature towards you". All spells which push a creature away from you or pull a creature towards you would need to be written like this (although I wouldn't be surprised if a few melee spell attack spells ignore this design pattern).
Notice that an AoE spell is aware of its point of origin because the spell targets the entire area, thereby affecting the entire area with its magic -- and the point of origin is part of the area for the purposes of targeting. So the spell effect can refer to it.
So, because it's created this way, the Lightning Lure spell becomes an AoE spell, even though the flavor of the effect is that a streak of lightning reaches out from the spellcaster to any creature within the area (not within range, within the area) and pulls that creature towards the spellcaster.
Another argument you make is that an AoE can't target creatures; it can only target the point of origin and affect creatures in the AoE. This is contrary to many specific spell descriptions that define targets within the AoE. You may claim it's a one-word slip-up, but it is persistent enough to suggest otherwise.
It's not persistent at all. 90 out of the 98 spells from the core source books really do go out of their way to remain consistent with the rules. I've listed them all for you in a previous post.
Where it does get a bit trickier is for those couple of spells such as Lightning Lure and Slow which describe a process of choosing which of the creatures in the area will be affected. This is definitely still not what an AoE spell is targeting, but the distinction does become a bit more confusing for those spells than it is for a basic spell such as Fireball.
Furthermore, there are also general rules to support this:
If you are in the area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself.
This is in the targets section of Chapter 10 under targeting yourself. It explicitly states that you can, in fact, target yourself with a spell you cast if you are in its AoE. This suggests the general rules for AoE spells do involve targeting affected creatures within the AoE.
Yes, I acknowledged this one before. This is the one and only place in the entirety of Chapter 10 where the word "Target" doesn't seem to really fit with anything. It doesn't really fit with what you are saying, and it doesn't really fit with what I am saying. I honestly don't really know what that line is actually trying to say -- whatever was actually intended, it really deserves to be cleaned up via errata to become clearer.
If that line is really talking about targeting yourself simply because you happen to be standing anywhere inside of an AoE that you created (and not necessarily at the origin), then it would be sort of confirming a corner-case for a rule that aligns with what you're saying. But the general case for that doesn't exist anywhere, so it really feel like that can't really be what it means. I also sort of read this to be trying to talk about how you (the creature) can be the origin point for certain types of AoE spells that you cast, instead of that always being a point in space at your location -- but that was sort of already covered in the rules for Range.
I know for certain that you guys won't like this explanation, but this really feels to me like once upon a time in the development cycle for 5e, pre-2014 release, there was some testing material where creatures that were affected by an AoE really were considered to be targets. Then, by the time the game was actually released, this had been changed. But there are bits and pieces of the old design still floating around within the rules. This has definitely happened in other aspects of the rules as well. The big one that always sticks out to me is that there was once clearly a concept of group stealth and/or group surprise. It's beyond the scope here, but if you go down that rabbit hole there is clear evidence of that still sitting in the existing rules that never got cleaned up.
So, I guess what do you do about that line? It's using the alternate meaning for target in a corner case when it was never generally used that way for all cases. Do we ignore this? Do we actually apply the rule that way only for that corner case? Like, ok, if the spellcaster is literally one of the creatures that is in the AoE then the spellcaster and only the spellcaster can be considered to be a target. That's just weird to me, although that's probably technically the RAW answer.
I will be ignoring this line because it doesn't fit with the rest of how spellcasting works at all. You guys can go ahead and ignore that line or choose to enforce that line as you wish.
The next issue concerns the need for targets "to be affected by the spell’s magic."
For reference:
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
You're using that line way too narrowly. We've already discussed that a valid target doesn't actually have to be affected simply because you can miss your target.
But besides that, you're missing which part of that sentence is emphasized. It's talking about needing to aim your spell at something. This sentence is not trying to box in exactly what it means to be a valid target -- it's just tacking on for what purpose you would generally be trying to target something -- to affect it with magic. The part of the rule which defines precisely what are the choices for a valid target is the second sentence, where the 3 categories of targets are given.
But these two sentences are meant to run together as one idea which explains what the target of the spell is. It's the thing over there that I'm trying to affect with a magic spell. Maybe that's a creature -- if so, target the creature. Maybe it's an object -- if so, target the object. Maybe that's an area / volume in space. If so, target that area. The spell's description will tell you which one it is! This rule is so simple -- it's right there in the text. It's maddening to keep reexplaining it.
I honestly have no idea why Hypnotic Pattern was brought up. If you're making a point there then please expand, otherwise, maybe we can just ignore it.
The point is that the effect of Booming Blade explicitly intends to affect the attack target. This indicates that this creature is the true target of the spell.
It doesn't matter at all what the intended final result is when the usage of this spell has come and gone. What we are talking about are the technical mechanism which are actually making that final result happen. Booming Blade explicitly uses the parameter "Range: self (5-foot-radius)" and the text explicitly refers to "within 5 feet" instead of "within range". These things mean something mechanically. The final result is the same -- that creature is affected. But how we get there is important when trying to consider whether or not the spell interacts properly with other Feats and Features such as War Caster.
Lastly, we come to the point of origin. We've gone over what point of origin is, but what I've pressed you on is the need to prove your claim that the point of origin of a spell must always be the spell's target (and apparently, must be the sole target). There are no explicit rules to support this, so you've essentially resorted to proving it by default by saying the player can only determine the location of the point of origin by targeting it with the spell. This works against you in the manner I pointed out with Lightning Lure, but even if you're absolutely right; this is completely moot because you don't choose the point of origin in cases of self (XYZ). The point of origin is fixed as described by the rules:
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 in the case of Booming Blade, you don't choose the point of origin and there is no rule that states it must be a target of the spell. Since the spell effect is applied solely to the attack target, we can conclude that this attack target is the intended target of the spell.
That rule is simply differentiating between the fact that some spells target the spellcaster and affect only the spellcaster which falls under the "creature target" category, and other spells target the spellcaster but are AoE spells which affect the nearby area and those fall under the "area target" category -- even though both of those have a range of self. It also is how the rules mention that a point of origin can be a creature instead of a point in space. The point of origin for these spells (either the spellcaster or the spellcaster's location) must still be targeted for these types of spells even though we know that the options are severely limited by the range of the spell.
For Booming Blade, yes you do choose the point of origin and yes the rules state that it must be the target of the spell. It's one of the 3 target categories:
a point of origin for an area of effect
For an area of effect, you target a point of origin.
It must always be the spell's target only for AoE spells. For other spells, you target something else. It's the sole target because that's the only thing that you are affecting with the spell's magic. The area. When the spell affects an area then the only target is that area's point of origin.
We can use Fireball as an example. From Chapter 10, we have:
For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts
That spell has a Range of 150, so that point in space can be anywhere within there. There doesn't have to be a single creature anywhere near there for you to successfully cast this spell. It simply is not a requirement to be able to cast the spell that any creatures at all are involved. That's because this is a spell that targets an area, not a creature. Maybe you just want to set something on fire. Maybe you just want to entertain a crowd with a big exploding ball in space. You can do that. You target whatever area you are trying to affect with magic. That's what AoE spells do and that's how they work.
The obvious problem here is that Booming Blade doesn't have anything in its effect indicating an AoE. To the contrary, the spell's effect indicates that one creature within 5 feet, who is targeted by the melee attack, is the intended target of the spell. The "5 feet" here clearly refers to the range at which the caster can make the melee attack, not to an AoE. Similarly, with Lightning Lure, the 15-foot radius refers to the range at which you can attack the creature you target for the spell.
There doesn't need to be anything perceptible in the area. The entire area is ready to interact with the exact place where the attack is made. That's the effect. Yes, the "5 feet" indicates a sort of "range" for the attack, only because you are at the center of the sphere and it extends outwards 5 feet from you and the creature must be within that space. It must be within 5 feet of you. This hard-coded numeric reference indicates the size of an area.
There is nothing in the rules which spell out this usage of the range block. You will need to provide a reference that range self (5-foot radius) always means AoE sphere. It seems to me that if we exclude what we have in dispute, booming blade, green flame blade, and lightning lure; that every other case has an AoE type listed in the spell's effect. What place other than the effect block would be appropriate to include the Area of Effect? The vast majority of AoE's simply don't have any indicators in the range block that they are an AoE spell... Fireball, slow, hypnotic pattern, etc.
Ok, so I was in a hurry in my previous post and didn't get a chance to fully discuss Lightning Lure:
The thematic picture that they are going for with lightning lure is to use it like a stereotypical whip-like weapon which reaches out and grabs something and pulls it back in towards you. The most obvious way to design such a spell is to just declare that the spell has a range of 15 feet and that you target a creature "within range". You then declare that part of the effect is that the target creature is pulled 10 feet closer to you.
There's one small, subtle problem with this. Spell effects never refer to the source of the spell. This is consistent design throughout the whole game. The spell itself has no memory of its source. The spell is cast from the source to the target. When it gets there, the spell effect is released into existence. But it doesn't remember where it came from, in which direction or how far away. Because that's just not part of the spell effect. The spell effect is only concerned with what is going on at its target location. So, there is no way for the above spell to actually be written that way, because it wouldn't know in which direction to "pull" the creature.
So, what they did instead was to make the spellcaster's location known to the spell. You do this by casting an AoE spell ON the spellcaster or his location so that the origin point for the AoE coincides with the spellcaster's location. The AoE spell effect knows where its point of origin is, but it doesn't know where the spellcaster is. It just so happens that these are at the same place for AoE spells which have the "Range: self (area)" notation. This allow them to create a spell description that says that it "pulls the creature towards you". All spells which push a creature away from you or pull a creature towards you would need to be written like this (although I wouldn't be surprised if a few melee spell attack spells ignore this design pattern).
That's all fine, and the target of the spell is not self. That's just where the point of origin of the spell is.
Notice that an AoE spell is aware of its point of origin because the spell targets the entire area, thereby affecting the entire area with its magic -- and the point of origin is part of the area for the purposes of targeting. So the spell effect can refer to it.
So, because it's created this way, the Lightning Lure spell becomes an AoE spell, even though the flavor of the effect is that a streak of lightning reaches out from the spellcaster to any creature within the area (not within range, within the area) and pulls that creature towards the spellcaster.
I wouldn't say it's 'aware' of the point of origin. Lightning Lure is essentially a rope made of lightning. It comes from the point of origin, snags the target, then pulls it back towards the point of origin (which is you) up to 10-feet. The spell isn't acting with intent, it's being guided by the caster to perform the function of its effect.
You're using that line way too narrowly. We've already discussed that a valid target doesn't actually have to be affected simply because you can miss your target.
But it does need to intend to affect the target. That is the reason behind targeting something for a spell.
But besides that, you're missing which part of that sentence is emphasized. It's talking about needing to aim your spell at something. This sentence is not trying to box in exactly what it means to be a valid target -- it's just tacking on for what purpose you would generally be trying to target something -- to affect it with magic. The part of the rule which defines precisely what are the choices for a valid target is the second sentence, where the 3 categories of targets are given.
But these two sentences are meant to run together as one idea which explains what the target of the spell is. It's the thing over there that I'm trying to affect with a magic spell. Maybe that's a creature -- if so, target the creature. Maybe it's an object -- if so, target the object. Maybe that's an area / volume in space. If so, target that area. The spell's description will tell you which one it is! This rule is so simple -- it's right there in the text. It's maddening to keep reexplaining it.
And the point I'm making is that the spell is only capable of affecting the attack target with the effects of the magic of the spell. That is what makes it a target, as defined by the first sentence of the target section of ch 10. The effect says nothing about affecting the area, it says everything about affecting the attack target.
I honestly have no idea why Hypnotic Pattern was brought up. If you're making a point there then please expand, otherwise, maybe we can just ignore it.
Hypnotic pattern was an example which explains your question "If you are targeting an area, what more can you do?" you can... affect an area. And of course it doesn't have to be perceptible, but even slow talks about slowing time down locally. Booming blade just sheaths your attack target with booming energy. It does nothing at all to the area or space.
Lastly, we come to the point of origin. We've gone over what point of origin is, but what I've pressed you on is the need to prove your claim that the point of origin of a spell must always be the spell's target (and apparently, must be the sole target). There are no explicit rules to support this, so you've essentially resorted to proving it by default by saying the player can only determine the location of the point of origin by targeting it with the spell. This works against you in the manner I pointed out with Lightning Lure, but even if you're absolutely right; this is completely moot because you don't choose the point of origin in cases of self (XYZ). The point of origin is fixed as described by the rules:
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 in the case of Booming Blade, you don't choose the point of origin and there is no rule that states it must be a target of the spell. Since the spell effect is applied solely to the attack target, we can conclude that this attack target is the intended target of the spell.
That rule is simply differentiating between the fact that some spells target the spellcaster and affect only the spellcaster which falls under the "creature target" category, and other spells target the spellcaster but are AoE spells which affect the nearby area and those fall under the "area target" category -- even though both of those have a range of self. It also is how the rules mention that a point of origin can be a creature instead of a point in space. The point of origin for these spells (either the spellcaster or the spellcaster's location) must still be targeted for these types of spells even though we know that the options are severely limited by the range of the spell.
For Booming Blade, yes you do choose the point of origin and yes the rules state that it must be the target of the spell. It's one of the 3 target categories:
a point of origin for an area of effect
For an area of effect, you target a point of origin.
It must always be the spell's target only for AoE spells. For other spells, you target something else. It's the sole target because that's the only thing that you are affecting with the spell's magic. The area. When the spell affects an area then the only target is that area's point of origin.
The most important thing in that post is...
There is no rule in the book that requires the point of origin to be the spell target.
This is the one thing you needed to prove. Your only argument is that you can't pick a point of origin without targeting it... But you don't pick the point of origin for self (XYZ). Rules say it is always self. So now what? Where is your rule that the point of origin must be self? Reasserting your claim doesn't prove anything.
But more to that, you did leave out Haste actions and opportunity attacks. Both have special requirements that limit what you can do because of a rules interaction. Just like War Caster limits what you can do because of a rules interaction. It's the same kind of interaction.
You really think this one's a winner, huh
If you don't see the difference between "do what the spell explicitly says you can do" and "you're not allowed to do what the spell explicitly says you can do", then we're stopping right here, because you even don't seem to understand the argument you're making
Like, if there was a clause in GFB that says "you cannot apply the splash damage if you use the spell as a reaction" just as there was in haste, then OK, fine, that's what it says. I'd still say it was poorly written for all the other reasons, but they at least would have covered their ass on this point
But again, are you required to select yourself whenever there is no one else next to the target of GFB? Or are you free to forego that damage? Must you select an ally if they're next to your target? Must you only use GFB on a target next to another creature? If an enemy is next to your target, are you able to forgo the damage? If you are free not to choose another creature then why in the world are you not free to do that when you'd like to in order to fulfill the requirements of a a feature?
These choices are all taken away from you if you use GFB with War Caster. You're not "free to choose" at all. That's so basic I'm just going to assume you're arguing it for the sake of arguing
Two creatures are standing next to each other. You hit one with GFB. Do you have the option of doing damage to the other one? GFB says yes, you can. JC says, "if you used War Caster, no you can't". That's not having a choice
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)
We know that the supposition that you can tell what "target" means without reading comprehension is false. The rules use the term inconsistently, so saying that "target must mean one thing" is demonstrably false. So the supposition that "target" needs to go back to the one and only definition in the rules is demonstrably false: it is proved and accepted that the word is used differently in the text of the rules. That is really all there is to it. It's simple.
And yet, there actually are general rules that define and explain exactly what a spell target is for this game and how that concept is used. This is the Rules and Mechanics Forum and we are discussing what the actual mechanics are for targeting in the game because that's relevant to the question of the potential interaction between a certain spell and a Feat that was proposed in the OP. Those mechanics are designed to work a certain way and the general rules are written to explain how those mechanics work. Not just the rules for Targets -- all of the general rules for spellcasting are written in such a way that together they create a system for how to cast a spell.
For example, the target of a spell must be within range. The target of a spell cannot be behind total cover. Those are just two of the several super blatant reasons why an affected creature cannot be considered to be a target of a spell. Several important core rules for spellcasting would break down if that interpretation was used. As you said, that's reading comprehension at work.
There doesn't need to be anything perceptible in the area. The entire area is ready to interact with the exact place where the attack is made. That's the effect. Yes, the "5 feet" indicates a sort of "range" for the attack, only because you are at the center of the sphere and it extends outwards 5 feet from you and the creature must be within that space. It must be within 5 feet of you. This hard-coded numeric reference indicates the size of an area.
There is nothing in the rules which spell out this usage of the range block. You will need to provide a reference that range self (5-foot radius) always means AoE sphere. It seems to me that if we exclude what we have in dispute, booming blade, green flame blade, and lightning lure; that every other case has an AoE type listed in the spell's effect. What place other than the effect block would be appropriate to include the Area of Effect? The vast majority of AoE's simply don't have any indicators in the range block that they are an AoE spell... Fireball, slow, hypnotic pattern, etc.
Ok, just in general I really need to point out at this point that it appears as if you don't even read the answers to the questions that you are asking, because immediately after I answer the question you just ask it again. I don't really understand that but it has happened several times now. It's best to read the answer to a question before just asking the same question again.
So, let's go through this again. The size and shape of the AoE IS included in every effect block of every spell where there is an AoE. Look for the hard-coded number -- that's usually a critically important clue towards finding it. The reason why it's always explicitly described within the effect in the first place is because when the game was originally released, they generally didn't put the information about the Area in the spell parameter list -- probably because most spells do not create an Area of Effect, so the entry would just be "N/A" if it were included. But the earliest books did begin the convention of including the Area information in parentheses next to the Range entry for some spells. It would have been better if there was a separate line dedicated to "Area", but they didn't do that. It would have also been better if they had labeled the parameter in question "Range/Area" or "Range (Area)", but they didn't do that either. You just had to realize that that's what was going on when you saw the parentheses in the entry and you read the corresponding text for the Effect and you realize that the description aligns perfectly with the portion of the text that appeared in parentheses in the Range parameter.
Fast forward a few years to Digital Books and D&D Beyond database entries. These versions of the spells are the most up to date versions. D&D Beyond now explicitly calls that parameter "Range/Area" for all of its spell entries and they went through the painstaking process of reading through every spell and pulling out the information about the Area which was already present in the text and listing it in the parentheses of the Range/Area parameter. This is mainly just a tremendous quality of life improvement for players who are trying to search and filter and scan through lists of spells to determine at a glance which ones are AoE spells without having to open and read every spell description and having to put a little mark with a Sharpie next to the hard copy entries that are AoE spells.
Because the game explicitly labels the parameter "Range/Area", this refers to something in the game called "Range" and also something in the game called "Area". If a player is confused about what either of those terms mean, they flip to Chapter 10 where these terms are defined. There is a whole section in that Chapter called Range which explains what that word means, and there is also a whole section in that Chapter called Areas of Effect which explains what that word means. Those are the rules that you keep asking about. Something that appears in the Range entry is a Range. Something that appears in the Area entry is an Area. That's how it works. You won't get a line of text in the rules that explicitly says so -- that's not how the rules work. The rules work by seeing a game term and flipping back to the Chapter that explains that game term.
I wouldn't say it's 'aware' of the point of origin. Lightning Lure is essentially a rope made of lightning. It comes from the point of origin, snags the target, then pulls it back towards the point of origin (which is you) up to 10-feet. The spell isn't acting with intent, it's being guided by the caster to perform the function of its effect.
Yes, that's the flavor of what that spell does. In other words, a character in the game who was an outside observer would see exactly what you are describing when that spellcaster casts that spell and affects a nearby creature with it. Mechanically, the spell functions in a certain way in order to make this happen and that is specified by the spell description.
Remember, the term "point of origin" ONLY refers to AoE spells. So, the spell is doing exactly what you just described because it's an AoE spell. "You" happen to coincide with the location of the point of origin and so the spell is able to pull the creature "toward you" via this mechanism.
If instead the spell was written to just have a range of 15 feet and directly target a creature within range, it wouldn't be able to pull the creature "toward you" since the effect doesn't know where you are. For example, the Magic Missile could not have included an effect that pushes the target creature "away from you" based on how that spell is currently designed.
As another example, a spell which came to my mind is Gust of Wind, of which its main strategic purpose is to affect creatures such that they can "be pushed 15 feet away from you". Mentally, it might seem like this spell should act a lot like Magic Missile -- you picture wind shooting out from you towards a target creature. However, even before I looked up the spell, I knew how it "should" be designed in order to achieve the "from you" effect. And sure enough, I opened up that spell and it's listed with the parameter: "Range: self (60-foot-line)". It has to be written that way for the reasons that I'm describing here. But as a consequence, mechanically this spell is nothing like Magic Missile. It's an AoE spell which targets the spellcaster (in this case, the actual spellcaster, not the spellcaster's location) and it creates an AoE that has the indicated size and a shape (in this case, it's a Line, which is uncommon).
But it does need to intend to affect the target. That is the reason behind targeting something for a spell.
That's correct. You intend to affect a creature or an object or an area. The spell description tells you which one is targeted. When the spell description describes an area, that spell targets an area and that's exactly what is affected. The area.
And the point I'm making is that the spell is only capable of affecting the attack target with the effects of the magic of the spell. That is what makes it a target, as defined by the first sentence of the target section of ch 10. The effect says nothing about affecting the area, it says everything about affecting the attack target.
That's close, but it's not correct. The spell is actually affecting an area when it is cast. The effect does define the area. It says "within 5 feet of you" and explicitly not "within range". That's literally the spell saying something about this issue. Not nothing. Something.
An Area of Effect is created by the spell. That Area contains an effect (hence the name). The text for this effect describes exactly how this effect goes on to affect creatures. Not to be confused with the thing that you are intending to affect with the casting of the spell, which is an area. Furthermore, this particular effect is really weak -- it runs out of gas as soon as it affects a single creature. That's why there is a selection process, similar to how things work for the Slow spell. If there are too many creatures within those Areas of Effect, the effect that resides there is not powerful enough to affect them all -- the effect gets all used up before that happens. So, a decision has to be made about how to determine which creatures are affected. These spells could have been written to determine this randomly. The authors chose not to write it that way -- instead, they allow the spellcaster to designate which creatures can be affected by the effect that fills the space. Again, not to be confused with the intended effect of actually casting the spell, which is to affect an area. The spell descriptions are telling you this via the Range parameter and by how the text specifies a size and shape of an area instead of targeting creatures within range.
Booming blade just sheaths your attack target with booming energy. It does nothing at all to the area or space.
Ok, this is an important point to clear up now as it is actually a separate concept.
It's important not to confuse the description that talks about "becomes sheathed in booming energy" with the actual effect that sits within the Area of Effect. Becoming sheathed in booming energy is a consequence of having interacted with the Area of Effect. This is what happens TO the creature -- that's the affect that the effect has ON the creature.
As an example, consider a spell such as Sunburst. This is an AoE spell with a lot of options regarding where to put the point of origin for an Area of Effect. This spell can result in a creature having the Blinded Condition placed upon it for up to a minute. This Blinded Condition is not THE effect that exists within the Area of Effect. It is a consequence of what happens to an affected creature. The effect that exists within the Area of Effect in this case is described as being a flash of brilliant sunlight which fills the area. But this effect in fact does not need to be perceptible at all. Again, the Blinded Condition here is not THE effect that exists in the space. It's a consequence of what happens to the creature when it is affected by that effect. Meanwhile, the target of that spell is a point in space within range which was targeted for the sole purpose of filling a particular area with a flash of brilliant sunlight.
There is no rule in the book that requires the point of origin to be the spell target.
100% False. It's actually still the same percentage of falseness regardless of what color you make the text or how large you make it. It's still just as false. This has been proven repeatedly and exhaustively through directly quoting several rules that actually exist in the general rules for spellcasting. Over and over again. A full explanation was given yet again in this very post.
There is no rule in the book that requires the point of origin to be the spell target.
100% False. It's actually still the same percentage of falseness regardless of what color you make the text or how large you make it. It's still just as false. This has been proven repeatedly and exhaustively through directly quoting several rules that actually exist in the general rules for spellcasting. Over and over again. A full explanation was given yet again in this very post.
OK, I'm going to respond to this one for now because it's annoying not having my points addressed. This is a crucial point, even if you're right about everything else, your whole interpretation still rides on this. Give me one single reference that proves what's on red. Thus far, you've only provided this:
A spell’s description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect
Even by your own reference it doesn't need to target a point of origin. Booming Blade can target a creature, and that's completely consistent with this rule.
I am not coming around to the incorrect view that some users present here, but I am coming around to the fact that no one needs to disprove anyone here. If I've learned anything from watching flat earthers or political discourse, people backed into the corner of an incorrect world view double down instead of changing their view.
I think that any reasonable person would understand that if your rules argument relies on ignoring rules as "erroneous" or having one knower-of-rules by which all statements must be passed in order to check their validity, then that rules argument is incorrect on its face and indefensible. The rules are as they are -- imperfections and all -- so you have to make some assumptions when you read them. Those assumptions can be made differently.
I finally took the smart step and will no longer have to interact with users who post like that. I might suggest the same for you. I'm sure there will be a response to this that I wouldn't like. But luckily, I won't have to interact with it.
I'm aware of the presence of cognitive dissonance in internet exchanges. I don't think there will be much to talk about after this. We've pretty much hashed out the issue. I'm just glad I could learn and better understand the rules on this issue. I won't be waking away empty handed.
A spell’s description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect
Even by your own reference it doesn't need to target a point of origin. Booming Blade can target a creature, and that's completely consistent with this rule.
Prove otherwise.
What do you mean? You don't get to choose. The spell's description tells you which category for a target is used. In the case of Booming Blade, the size and shape of an area is listed in the text for the effect, the spell specifically doesn't say that it targets a creature within range, the range of the spell is listed as "self" and at least in the online entry there are parentheses next to the range which describes the size and shape of an Area. This is the spell telling you that this is an AoE spell and for an AoE spell you target "a point of origin for an Area of Effect".
Are you asking for quotes of all of the rules which create this spellcasting system all over again? Let's take it from the top:
The Rules of Magic --> Spellcasting:
Magic permeates the worlds of D&D and most often appears in the form of a spell.
This section provides the rules for casting spells . . . Regardless of its source, a spell follows the rules here.
So basically, magic is everywhere and we can harness it for a specific purpose by casting a spell. Fine.
The main example given for the source of a spell is a spellcaster, which can be a character class or a monster. A common interpretation also asserts that Magic Items can also cast spells, but this is open to debate.
Ok, but what is a spell and how do we cast it?
A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse into a specific, limited expression. In casting a spell, a character carefully . . . releases them to unleash the desired effect
As we might see later, this releasing of the raw magic is the last point at which the spellcaster has control of the spell. In fact, according to the rules for the Ready Action, the spell has already been cast by this point, but apparently the common interpretation is that it's still possible to choose your target right up until the moment that the spellcaster releases the raw magic:
When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs. To be readied, a spell must have a casting time of 1 action, and holding onto the spell's magic requires concentration. If your concentration is broken, the spell dissipates without taking effect.
This emphasizes the timing of what happens when casting a spell and at which point the target of the spell is targeted.
Now, apparently the idea of holding and releasing the raw magic was a simplification (rules inconsistency?). The more detailed explanation is here:
Mortals can’t directly shape this raw magic. Instead, they make use of a fabric of magic, a kind of interface between the will of a spellcaster and the stuff of raw magic. The spellcasters of the Forgotten Realms call it the Weave . . . By any name, without the Weave, raw magic is locked away and inaccessible . . . Whenever a magic effect is created, the threads of the Weave intertwine, twist, and fold to make the effect possible.
Ok, great. So, now that we know in general that it's possible to harness and subsequently release the world's magic by casting a spell -- how exactly do we go about casting a spell?
Casting a Spell
When a character casts any spell, the same basic rules are followed, regardless of the character's class or the spell's effects.
Each spell description begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.
So, there is a structure to each spell and a system for casting it according to the rules that relate to a number of key concepts, such as casting time, range, components, duration, targets, areas of effect, saving throws, attack rolls and combining magical effects. Each of those concepts gets its own subsection which houses all of the general rules, important terms and game concepts related to that aspect of casting a spell, and all of these rules work together in order to successfully cast a spell.
Ok, so why would I ever want to cast a spell in the first place? What is each spell trying to accomplish? How is the spell directed by the spellcaster in such a way that it attempts to accomplish the purpose of the spell? Answer:
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
So, the purpose of a spell and of casting that spell is to attempt to affect a target of the spell with the spell's magic. There are 3 options for doing this -- the spell description tells you which one to use, based on the purpose of that spell.
The spell description will require you to target a creature to be affected by the spell's magic if that's the purpose of that spell.
The spell description will require you to target an object to be affected by the spell's magic if that's the purpose of that spell.
The spell description will require you to target a point of origin for an area of effect to affect an area with the spell's magic if that's the purpose of that spell.
So, now that we know which type of target the spell description tells us to use, what are my limitations? How far away can my target be?
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range.
So, just to be clear, when we say that the target must be within range, what are some examples?
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.
But wait a minute. If the target of my spell is a point in space and it has to be within range, what happens to the other half of the Area if I place the point in space at the edge of the range after the Area fully erupts?
Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise.
Ok, but wait, how far away can the target be really? What is meant by within range? What is the maximum distance between the source and the target?
Most spells have ranges expressed in feet.
Some spells can target only a creature . . . 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.
Wait, that last part is italicized by this Forum poster. Is that important? Yes. It's yet another indicator that when we are talking about an Area of Effect spell, that spell must target the point of origin for the Area of Effect. Since this entire section is talking about where you are allowed to target your spell, the spell must target self to remain in accordance with the rules, and the fact that the range of self "indicates" that the origin point must be here also means that the target of the spell must be the origin point of the Area of Effect (as has already been established previously when learning about the 3 options for the valid categories of targets).
But hold on, if the spellcaster is the source of the spell, and the spell is cast at its target to try to affect it with magic, what happens if there is an obstacle in the way?
A Clear Path to the Target
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
So, just for the fun of it, what if we said that affected creatures within an Area of Effect were targets of the spell. Does that break any of these rules?
Yes. If the creature is behind an obstacle, you do not have a clear path to it, so it cannot be a target of the spell by rule -- but, that creature could still be located within an Area of Effect.
In addition, if a creature is too far away, it could be outside the range of the spell, disqualifying it from being a target of the spell -- but, that creature could still be located within an Area of Effect.
Furthermore, one of the previous rules goes out of its way to make sure that such creatures are appropriately affected. The rule was given above which says that the effects of the spell are not limited by its range once the spell is cast. When the spell is being cast and the targeting process is set, that target must be within range. But after that process is over with, the resulting effects are not limited by the range.
As long as we remember that the point of origin for an Area of Effect is the target of the AoE spell, each and every one of these rules work together in perfect harmony.
Since we're on the subject of Areas of Effect, there are some important rules in there as well. Those rules are written from the perspective of describing what an Area of Effect is, and how one comes into existence from its own perspective -- beginning from the moment that the point of origin is unleashed into existence and then referencing back to that point of origin. The mechanism which establishes exactly how that point of origin comes into existence in the first place was discussed in the rules for Targets. As such, these rules here have no need to refer to targeting since we are no longer talking about the spell itself, but about the Area that is created by it:
[AoE] Spells . . . cover an area [ which is their whole purpose, as per the premise of the Targets rule ], allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.
Next:
A spell's description specifies its area of effect
Yep, it does. Look for the hard-coded number that describes the size of an area and the corresponding description of a shape for that area.
In addition:
Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how you position its point of origin. Typically, a point of origin is a point in space, but some spells have an area whose origin is a creature or an object.
Yes, you position the point of origin, because that's the target of all AoE spells.
Perhaps we need an example:
Sphere
You select a sphere's point of origin, and the sphere extends outward from that point. The sphere's size is expressed as a radius in feet that extends from the point.
That's right. You select it by targeting it with your spell.
So, that covers all of the general rules which are relevant to this discussion and how they all support my view of the spellcasting system in 5e. If that's not what you were asking for then my apologies. I'm getting tired of people telling me that there is no such rule and that I've never quoted a rule and various other falsehoods, so I've now put it all in one place. If this doesn't do it for you then I guess pretty soon we'll just agree to disagree because these are indeed the rules and they have been directly quoted.
Just so you know... data dumping a bunch of irrelevant stuff just makes you look petulant. I asked a very specific question, and it shouldn't have been difficult to answer. Let's see if you answered it somewhere in this.
What do you mean? You don't get to choose. The spell's description tells you which category for a target is used.
I obviously know this. What I meant was that Booming Blade could target a creature (by effect) and be consistent with this targeting rule, because it only says you target one of the listed three.
So basically, magic is everywhere and we can harness it for a specific purpose by casting a spell. Fine.
Ironically, this works against your explanation of Booming Blade. Magic is everywhere in everything… so how do you “fill an area with magic” using a spell? It's already filled with magic, the spellcaster just needs to utilize the Weave to manifest it to their whim. So essentially your AoE explanation for Booming Blade was completely vacuous.
Since this entire section is talking about where you are allowed to target your spell, the spell must target self to remain in accordance with the rules, and the fact that the range of self "indicates" that the origin point must be here also means that the target of the spell must be the origin point of the Area of Effect (as has already been established previously when learning about the 3 options for the valid categories of targets).
Amazing… so because it doesn't actually say the point of origin is the target, you're forced to insert it in there. But no… this section isn't meant to explain targets, it's meant to explain range. In doing so, they listed some different range scenarios and defined them in terms of range. It listed one scenario and said that means the range is self. It then listed another scenario and said that's also a range of self. If it wanted to say the point of origin is a target there, it would have said so. Inserting that in there is not RAW.
As long as we remember that the point of origin for an Area of Effect is the target of the AoE spell, each and every one of these rules work together in perfect harmony.
So long as you ignore every rule that conflicts with it… like “If you are in the area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself.”
So you didn't answer the question. You just data dumped a bunch of stuff and tried to speculate by inserting assumptions and extrapolate interpretations that aren't explicitly present in the source material.
To address further errors that aren't so obvious, you seem to misinterpret the following: "A spell’s description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect."
You've said that an AoE always targets the point of origin. This isn't what the rule is stating. It's saying that when you target the point of origin, it's always an AoE. This doesn’t mean an AoE will always target the point of origin. That would be an affirming the consequent fallacy. You essentially read it backwards.
“Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how you position its point of origin.”
The portion where it says "you position" is obviously in cases where you are able to position the point of origin yourself, which we know doesn't apply to self (XYZ). In that case you are always the point of origin, so you target something else. Like creatures. “But you can't target creatures with an AoE” which is started nowhere in the book. To the contrary, creatures are stated targets for AoE spells in several spell descriptions and the targeting yourself section portion of the targets section of chapter 10. So there is RAW support for targeting creatures with an AoE.
And lastly, your big argument that Self (5-foot radius) means there's an AoE. You mostly base this off of the Range/Area notation in the app. The problem with this is it isn't official RAW. The notation was likely a quality of life change for convenience, not an official change in the rules. If they wanted to change the rules, there would be an errata. As of yet, there's expansion of the range rules officially to explain the Range/Area notation. You should consider it as unofficial as you consider the Sage Advice you're so easy to dismiss.
The fact is, every spell description of an AoE spell will tell you if it's an AoE by using terms in the effect portion. The reason is in the effect is because that's the appropriate place to describe the Area of Effect. Booming Blade doesn't have any description of an AoE in its effect. The effect only affects the attack target which makes the attack target the intended target. The target is not space, the rules even explicitly state the point of origin isn't in space… it is you. The target isn't you either, all effects are applied to the target which is the creature you attack.
I suppose you could make booming blade a 5' emanation, in which you choose a single target within range. I don't know if I like that wording, but it could potentially accomplish what I think you are describing. As you say, I do no expect booming blade to be addressed explicitly in the new PHB, so you would need some kind of new general rule that would implicitly rewrite the range of booming blade and similar spells. I just don't see that happening. In terms of the topic of the thread, I really don't think any emanation information is going to change the way booming blade interacts (or, more accurately, does not interact) with dissonant whispers, though.
As an aside, when a person makes nonsense arguments, nobody is required to reply to attempt to fact-check them over and over. I mean, if you enjoy doing it, then follow your bliss. But I'm just saying there's plenty of room in this thread for a good conversation, even with someone on mute. I can attest that my experience has not been not worse off for it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not all those who wander are lost"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is correct. Since the books say exactly the same thing that I've been saying to the letter, it's impossible for the books to convince me that I'm wrong. The authors have made comments which are inconsistent with what the books actually say, so the best logical conclusion is that the authors were wrong when they made those comments -- this situation also will not convince me that I'm wrong.
I'm not exactly sure what this refers to. If I've misunderstood something in your posts, I can assure you that doing so was not intentional.
I actually have defined how I've been using this word in some of my recent posts. For simplicity, I'll just quote myself here:
and
and
This is incorrect. The War Caster Feat talks about casting a spell "at the creature" and which targets "only that creature", which is only valid for non-AoE spells. This connotation for the word "target" is consistent with the general rules for spellcasting. The DMG Table uses the word "target" to refer to creatures which are affected by AoE spells, which is the connotation for the word "target" that is inconsistent with the general rules for spellcasting.
I have been instructed by the Moderation team to become more robotic in my answers. So, if your main bone of contention with my posts is with the style of my writing, then unfortunately there's not much that I can do about it.
Oh, I forgot the main point of my last post. Much earlier on, I had meant to share some research that I had done a while back when a similar forum thread was being discussed, but I had not been able to find my notes about it.
These are all of the AoE spells that I could find in whichever hardcopy version of the PHB I was using at the time. I can't remember if optional books such as Xanathar's was included in this list.
90 of these spells are carefully written in a manner that is consistent with the general rules for spellcasting.
8 of these spells make reference to the incorrect definition of a target.
It's a slightly higher percentage of all AoE spells than I was estimating, but not by much. This is still a very small percentage of all AoE spells. It's honestly impressive how many spell descriptions do go out of their way to avoid making this mistake. They will tend to say exactly the same thing, but they will simply use a phrase like "affected creatures" instead of "Targets". Obviously total speculation, but it just feels like there was one author on the team that wasn't on the same page (potentially JC himself, based on his comments) and this aspect of spell descriptions were not carefully vetted before publication.
Spells Consistent with the General Rules (90):
antilife shell
antimagic field
antipathy/Sympathy
Aura of Life
Aura of Purity
Aura of Vitality
Black Tentacles
Burning Hands
Call Lightning
Calm Emotions
Circle of Power
Cloud of Daggers
Cloudkill
Color Spray
Cone of Cold
Confusion
Conjure Barrage
Conjure Volley
Control Water
Control Weather
Cordon of Arrows
Create or Destroy Water
Creation
Crusader's Mantle
Darkness
Daylight
Delayed Blast Fireball
Detect Good and Evil
Detect Magic
Detect Poison and Disease
Destructive Wave
Entangle
Evard's Black Tentacles
Fabricate
Faerie Fire
Fear
Fire Storm
Flame Strike
Flaming Sphere
Fog Cloud
Forbiddance
Forcecage
Freezing Sphere
Globe of Invulnerability
Grease
Guards and Wards
Gust of Wind
Hallow
Hallucinatory Terrain
Holy Aura
Hunger of Hadar
Hypnotic Pattern
Ice Storm
Incendiary Cloud
Insect Plague
Leomund's Tiny Hut
Light
Lightning Bolt
Magic Circle
Magnificent Mansion
Major Image
Meteor Swarm
Minor Illusion
Mirage Arcane
Mold Earth
Moonbeam
Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum
Otiluke's Freezing Sphere
Private Sanctum
Programmed Illusion
Purify Food and Drink
Pyrotechnics
Resilient Sphere
Reverse Gravity
Shatter
Silence
Silent Image
Sleep
Sleet Storm
Speak With Plants
Spike Growth
Spirit Guardians
Stinking Cloud
Sunbeam
Sunburst
Thunderwave
Tiny Hut
Web
Weird
Zone of Truth
Spells Inconsistent with the General Rules (8):
Arms of Hadar
Fireball
Circle of Death
Mass Cure Wounds
Phantasmal Force
Prismatic Spray
Slow
Symbol
Nope. It's not the same. War Caster doesn't talk about affecting a creature. The requirement for War Caster has been quoted:
This meaning of "target" has nothing to do with an Area of Effect that might affect a creature. It says quite clearly that you must cast the spell at the creature and target only that creature. That is completely different from what the DMG table is talking about. The War Caster Feat is consistent with the rules. The DMG table is not.
In fact, neither War Caster nor the DMG table talks about a spell hitting a creature. War Caster talks about targeting a creature. Some spells might target a creature and require an attack roll, which could miss. The DMG table talks about creating an AoE and determining which creatures are affected by that effect. Totally separate concepts.
What does this matter for anything in this discussion? No spells do this that I know of off the top of my head because they don't need to. This is already established in the general rules for spellcasting. You don't cut-and-paste the entirety of Chapter 10 into each and every spell description in order to make sure that the spell follows all of the rules. You put all of the general rules in one place and you simply refer back to them.
On the other hand, the general rules specifically state that the spell's description tells you which of the 3 categories is targeted by the spell. That's why the spell tells you that information. Whenever a spell (including its parameters) says that it's meant to affect an area with magic, the point of origin for an area of effect is targeted, as per the general rules. The spell itself doesn't have to specify that the point of origin is the target.
8 / 98 = 8.16%
90 / 98 = 91.84%
I don't see your point here. This paragraph comes from the section of the DMG that has that table we've been discussing. All of the usages in that paragraph are erroneous. Neither of those spells (Burning Hands or Lightning Bolt) targets any creatures despite what this paragraph might imply. Both of those spells are AoE spells. Furthermore, neither of those spells even contains any text that refers to the creatures as targets in their spell descriptions. The spells themselves are written correctly:
Burning Hands: "Each creature must make a saving throw", "a creature takes fire damage" . . . No mention of any creatures being targeted.
Lightning Bolt: "Each creature must make a saving throw", "a creature takes lightning damage" . . . No mention of any creatures being targeted.
There are dozens of spells like this which are basically identical which use this wording instead of the wording used in Fireball. It's the wording that you quoted from the DMG that is erroneous because it's trying to refer to a rule that doesn't exist. The rule says something else.
I'm starting to wonder if maybe the issue is that you're not seeing the difference between a non-AoE spell and an AoE spell . . .
For non-AoE spells, you attempt to affect a creature with the spell's magic so you target that creature. Or, you attempt to affect an object with the spell's magic so you target that object.
For AoE spells, you attempt to affect an area with the spell's magic so you target the origin point for an area of effect. That has nothing to do with targeting creatures. You are attempting to fill up that area with a magical effect. When you cast the spell, that's what happens. The AoE is created and the area was successfully affected with the spell's magic. Once that is done, now you can look at the explanation for what happens when that effect interacts with a creature located within that area. The casting of the spell has nothing to do with that process. The effect is now sitting in that space, filling up that area. That existing effect indiscriminately causes some sort of affect to creatures that happen to be located there. The spell is not doing this. The spell has already been cast with the intention of affecting an area, not a creature.
Those are the general rules for spellcasting and 91.84% of all AoE spells were carefully written to successfully remain consistent with those rules. Hopefully that clears up any confusion.
I was going to stop replying, but I'm not quite satisfied with how it ended.
Every spell you claim is in error is a book reference that conflicts with your view. The rule in targeting is another example, which gets us to something I didn't respond to before but was actuality important.
It doesn't seem you understand my point. “The creation of an AoE at that location” is not a magical effect that has an affect on the supposed target. Remember, you think the target of BB is self. Ch 10 targets are picked “to be affected by the spell’s magic.” Creating an AoE is not affecting the target with magic. You need to actuality point out an affect the spell has on the target. Of course it's continent upon success, but my point is BB does not affect self in any event with the spell's magic. Therefore your interpretation is not consistent with this general rule for targeting specifically in ch 10 (so I'm not confusing other targeting rules).
Another thing, there's an important spell that's notably absent from your list. Lightning lure. This one is important because it's very similar to BB, except without the melee attack included and range is extended to self (15- foot radius). Yet it still has an effect targeting the creature RAW. This seems to support the idea that BB is using the word target in a spell target sense, not merely a melee attack target sense.
Ok, it's true that I could have written that response a bit more accurately. What I mean to say there is that the rules in the books say what I've been saying. Not every single piece of text in the books align with what I've been saying -- that's impossible, because there are bits of text that conflict with each other on this topic. However, in this case it's an easy conflict to resolve. That's because the general rules on the topic are clear. But there are a few other places in the books, including in a few spell descriptions where the text there refers back to the rule, but it does so in a manner or context which implies that the rule that it is referring back to really says something other than what is actually there. In other words, the rule that is referred back to does not exist. Something else exists in its place which means something else. So, the reference is an error. I mean, it just is. That's not even really an interpretation, that's a fact.
For example, suppose you are reading an encyclopedia and when it talks about bicycles it makes a reference to a chart that talks about gasoline usage for various types of mopeds. It makes this reference in such a way and in such a context that it is heavily implied that standard bicycles actually consume gasoline. It's not actually saying so -- it's making a reference to other data where it is assumed that the bicycle will be listed as an entry with a nonzero value for usage alongside other gasoline using vehicles. It's making a reference to something that doesn't exist or is erroneous. That's an error, not an alternative interpretation. That's what's going on here. A reference is made that assumes that the general rule says something that it doesn't say, and instead it actually says the opposite. Hopefully additional metaphors for this concept won't be needed.
You're not getting the purpose of an AoE spell. One of the things that you can try to affect with your spell's magic is an area / volume in space. You want to try to fill up that space with the spell's magic. In order to actually do this, you target the point of origin for the area of effect with your spell when you cast it. The point of origin is usually a point in space, but it sometimes can be an actual creature, like in the case of Burning Hands. In that particular case, that creature IS the point of origin -- it's not a creature that is standing within the area of effect that is created. The effect radiates outwards from that creature. For Booming Blade the point of origin is a point in space. That point in space is placed within the range of self, which is required to be at the spellcaster's location. The spell's magic fills up a sphere surrounding the spellcaster's position, including the spellcaster's location. The area that is filled was the purpose of the spell -- that area is successfully filled with magic. That's the effect on the target -- it doesn't get any more magical than that. The area was empty. Now it is filled with magic. What more do you want when you are trying to affect (and therefore target) an area?
As it so happens, the spellcaster actually could be affected by this Area of Effect which was already created. To do so, he would have to successfully attack himself. That's because the point of origin for a sphere is included in the Area of Effect by default. But that's completely besides the point. Even if the spellcaster attacks himself, he was NOT the target of the spell. The target of the spell was a point in space. But that's completely besides the point also! That's because even if the spellcaster himself IS the point of origin for Booming Blade, targeting the point of origin only serves to create the Area of Effect. That's the purpose of the spell and that's what was targeted by the spell for that purpose. THEN, the spellcaster could be negatively affected by the effect that's now sitting there all throughout this area. The spellcaster STILL wasn't targeted by the spell in that case. He was just negatively affected by the Area of Effect. Just for my own sanity can someone please at least demonstrate that they get what I'm saying with explanations like this even if you somehow don't agree with them. Because every time an objection is made, it just seems like my explanation wasn't actually understood and a fundamental game concept is still being missed.
Ok, I'm not very familiar with the content from Tasha's so nothing from there was on my list. But I looked up the Lightning Lure spell. There are definitely some similarities to Booming Blade.
You aren't going to like it, but this is another spell that isn't obviously written to describe it this way, but this is an AoE spell. A sphere of energy is created around the spellcaster, and this can be harnessed into a lash that's directed at a creature that is within the AoE. Even though the creature is selected to be affected, it should not have been described as being targeted.
Of critical importance for understanding this spell, notice that it has a range of self and a notation describing a size and a shape. Notice also that the text describes that the creature is required to be "within 15 feet of you". It does NOT say that the creature is required to be "within range", as all non-AoE spells would say that directly target a creature. When the number 15 appears in that hard-coded manner, it is referring to the size of an Area of Effect, not the Range of the spell.
91.84%
You're not following what's going on here. No one has said that the rule in the DMG should be ignored. But that rule is about something else. There's good information in there about that other thing (which is, how to deal with Areas of Effect when running a Theatre of the Mind style game). In the context of trying to explain that other thing, that DMG rule references the general rule for targeting. The rule that it tries to refer to does not exist. It's like clicking on an old school broken internet link. We can see that there's text that's referring to a thing and that text has the hyperlink function activated. But when you click it, you are taken to a page where the information does not exist. Instead, some other totally different information is written at that website, making the context of how the hyperlinked word was used -- yep, erroneous.
I would say the spell effects are still part of the rules. Perhaps we could say they are specific rules, and you're claiming your interpretation is consistent with all the general rules.
How exactly do you know it's a point in space? Weren't you saying before it's from the creature, or the creature's weapon? I don't see how you could gather that the point of origin is a location in space from this spell description.
First, literally all of that is an extrapolation. None of it is in the spell description, so none of it is RAW. Second, “filling the area with magic” doesn't explain how the effect of the spell is actual affecting the target. The spell has to have a “a specific, limited expression” (quote from first sentence in chapter 10) which is meant to affect the target when the magic of the spell. Not just vaguely say “the magic is there… being present!” The way it affects the target needs to relate to the spell description's effect. Show me RAW, not head cannon.
This isn't helpful at all when comparing two interpretations: it targets self vs it targets the attack target.
What was it you said before?
So… concerning Lightning Lure, there is no mechanic in the game for an attack to be directed at a chosen creature without targeting them.
Sure, the spell descriptions could be considered specific rules for the game. But what I'm saying is that if the word "target" is merely mentioned along the way within the spell description, that doesn't make that one word a whole rule in and of itself. You don't say, "Oh! I see how they are using that word in context here -- THAT must be the rule for targeting!" No, no, no. The word is simply referencing a rule that is supposed to exist in another Chapter. When a spell says "The target takes fire damage", that's not saying anything about targets or targeting. A person who doesn't know anything about the game might read that sentence and say, "what do you mean, target? What's a target? You forgot to define what that means." And then someone would tell you, "Oh, that's referencing the rule about Targets and targeting from Chapter 10." The problem that I keep explaining is that there is no such rule in Chapter 10. Chapter 10 does not have any rule whereby creatures who happen to be standing in an Area of Effect should be called targets. Targets are exactly one of 3 things. They are a creature that is directly targeted by a non-AoE spell, or they are an object that is directly targeted by a non-AoE spell, or they are a point of origin for an area of effect. They are never a creature who is the victim of collateral damage when the nearby area happens to become magical. That's just an affected creature. So . . . going back to those spell descriptions which use the word in a context that assumes that there is a 4th possibility for what a target is -- that's just an error in the way that the spell description was written, because it's referencing something that isn't there.
This is just a guess based on what the spell says. Whenever you are talking about an AoE spell and therefore are talking about targeting a point of origin -- you don't actually know if the point of origin itself is a point in space or is a creature or even an object. You have to determine (guess) that from the description of the effect. Burning hands explicitly talks about flames shooting out of the spellcaster's body, so he is the point of origin. What's perhaps a little confusing is that the spellcaster is a creature and that creature would be the target of an AoE spell if he actually is the point of origin, but that's not really the same thing as a spell that targets a creature. It's still a spell that targets a point of origin -- but sometimes the point of origin is a creature. In the case of Booming Blade, it doesn't talk about flames shooting out of the spellcaster's body. It gives the otherwise unnecessary detail about brandishing a weapon. The only reason to give that detail is that the place where the weapon was brandished can act as the point in space where the AoE is created. Another possibility is that the spell is actually cast ON the weapon (an object), but this is unlikely because if the weapon moves, the entire AoE would move along with it. That's unlikely to be the correct interpretation for this spell. The spell says that the area of effect is "within 5 feet of you". It's likely meant to be a point in space at the spellcaster's current location which doesn't move. Again, that's just a guess.
This is not extrapolation. This comes straight from the spell description. Some of the information for this is in the parameters and some of the information is in the text for the spell effect. The most important bits are "Range: self (5-foot-radius)" and then also where it says "within 5 feet of you" instead of saying "within range". This is literally the spell description telling you what the target of the spell is, just like the rules say that it must tell you this.
This is all very clear in the rule for Targets. The premise of the rule starts out by saying that whenever you cast a spell, you target something that you intend to affect with the spell's magic. It then tells you that there are 3 things that you could be targeting. A creature, an object, or an area. If you are targeting an area, what more can you do? You can only take an ordinary area and fill it up with magic. That completes the casting of the spell -- that succeeds in its purpose. It's just not a spell that targets creatures or objects. It targets an area instead. Of course, the technical mechanism for actually targeting an area is to target its point of origin with the casting of the spell -- thereby satisfying the clear path rules and so on. The effect that is created within the area is what the spell DOES. This effect might then affect creatures, but that's not the spell's purpose. The spell's purpose was to affect an area -- one of the 3 possible things to affect with magic from the premise of the rule.
Ok, let's see. I think part of the confusion might be that there's really two different things going on which both use the words "effect" and "affect" to describe what's happening with them. Think of a creature being affected by a spell as a 2-step process. First, there is the process of targeting something with the spell. We aim the spell at a specific place so that whatever we are targeting becomes affected with magic. No matter if we targeted a creature or if we targeted an area, there is a moment when the spell arrives at it's target, from the source. This arrival creates a spell effect.
Now, for a non-AoE spell which just targeted a creature, there's not usually much more to think about. The creature is now affected by the spell in whichever way the spell says. However, this is not always so simple. Sometimes even a non-AoE spell could have a long duration. A spell might do something like afflict a creature with a Condition, such as Paralysis, which persists round after round. Now, every time a new round rolls around and that condition continues to affect the creature, we wouldn't say that the spell has targeted that creature again, right? The creature was only targeted once. It is now being affected round after round.
While this is uncommon for non-AoE spells, this sort of distinction basically always happens for AoE spells. That's because the spell effect that is created upon arriving at its target is that the magic erupts from the point of origin and fills a space. That's how the area is affected by the spell's magic. But now, the thing that just filled up that space is referred to as an Area of Effect. It's an area that has a spell effect within it. This can now passively interact with creatures who happen to be within the area in order to affect the creature. So, this is a second instance of using effect / affect, but we're talking about a separate thing. Sometimes, this spell effect can linger in this area for a long duration. If a creature wanders into it several minutes later, why would we consider that creature to be a target of the spell? The spell was cast a long time ago.
So, there's the effect that's created by the targeting process, and there's the lingering Area of Effect which could hang around for a while doing its thing. Obviously, you won't find the books going into this much detail -- they tend to keep their rules brief. But this is what's going on with spellcasting, particularly for AoE spells.
The point of all of that being -- the creature or point in space that is targeted by the AoE spell is a whole separate concept from the other creatures who might be affected by the actual effect that sits within the Area of Effect. Using the word "target" for both of these concepts just doesn't make sense. The word target is meant to refer to the destination of the spell being cast -- you cast it from the source to the target.
I promise that there really is a subtle difference with spells like Lightning Lure as compared to a spell like Magic Missile. But, if you really wanted to -- if you wanted to consider a couple of these spells such as Lightning Lure and Slow with that type of "select a creature" type of language and consider that to be some sort of specific vs general exception to the targeting rules, then it's probably not the end of the world for most purposes. There is a difference, but it's a lot closer to correct than for spells such as Fireball. For example, these spells still wouldn't be able to qualify for War Caster since that Feat requires the spell to be cast at the creature and the creature must be the sole target of the spell -- so a spell that targets a point of origin AND a creature cannot qualify.
This article Booming Blade 5e [DnD Spell Guide: Uses, Rules, Tips] is pretty good. It summarizes how Booming Blade works and includes links to Sage Advice and the Sage Advice Compendium to support the explanations.
No, because the duration is either case is still more than sufficient. You cast it normally and get one hour with concentration for non-combat situations, and cast it with a duration of one minute and no concentration for combat situations. The utility is comparable. You do know what "nerf" means, right?
OK, since you're still completely missing the point, let's go through them
More to the point, all your examples are also class/subclass features written specifically with those changes/limitations in mind for thematic reasons. They aren't ad hoc rulings on the interaction between two things. There's no thematic, or even logical in-game reason, why the splash damage from GFB would apply on one hit but not another
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)
At this point I think it might be important to build a case back up rather than break up your post point by point.
One vital premise in your position is that "range self (5-foot radius)" indicates an AoE. However, from what I've seen, an AoE spell always explicitly uses terms like line, cone, cube, or sphere in the description. The range block is not an indicator that the spell has an AoE; rather, the spell's effect is the typical place to find that information. This makes sense because it would describe an area of effect.
The obvious problem here is that Booming Blade doesn't have anything in its effect indicating an AoE. To the contrary, the spell's effect indicates that one creature within 5 feet, who is targeted by the melee attack, is the intended target of the spell. The "5 feet" here clearly refers to the range at which the caster can make the melee attack, not to an AoE. Similarly, with Lightning Lure, the 15-foot radius refers to the range at which you can attack the creature you target for the spell.
Another argument you make is that an AoE can't target creatures; it can only target the point of origin and affect creatures in the AoE. This is contrary to many specific spell descriptions that define targets within the AoE. You may claim it's a one-word slip-up, but it is persistent enough to suggest otherwise. Furthermore, there are also general rules to support this:
This is in the targets section of Chapter 10 under targeting yourself. It explicitly states that you can, in fact, target yourself with a spell you cast if you are in its AoE. This suggests the general rules for AoE spells do involve targeting affected creatures within the AoE.
The next issue concerns the need for targets "to be affected by the spell’s magic." I've used that as an argument as to why the target of Booming Blade cannot be self. This is connected to the issue of whether Booming Blade is an AoE, but essentially all attempts you've made to suggest self is affected by the spell have resorted to speculation. It's gotten to a point where you claim, "If you are targeting an area, what more can you do?" Putting aside the fact that you've admitted that you're speculating when you place the point of origin in a space within the caster's square, there are plenty of spells that affect a space.
Hypnotic Pattern:
AoE spells can affect the space, but that's not the point really. The point is that the effect of Booming Blade explicitly intends to affect the attack target. This indicates that this creature is the true target of the spell.
Lastly, we come to the point of origin. We've gone over what point of origin is, but what I've pressed you on is the need to prove your claim that the point of origin of a spell must always be the spell's target (and apparently, must be the sole target). There are no explicit rules to support this, so you've essentially resorted to proving it by default by saying the player can only determine the location of the point of origin by targeting it with the spell. This works against you in the manner I pointed out with Lightning Lure, but even if you're absolutely right; this is completely moot because you don't choose the point of origin in cases of self (XYZ). The point of origin is fixed as described by the rules:
So in the case of Booming Blade, you don't choose the point of origin and there is no rule that states it must be a target of the spell. Since the spell effect is applied solely to the attack target, we can conclude that this attack target is the intended target of the spell.
This is false. The spell's description tells you which category of targets we are talking about. We know this because there is a rule which says that:
But, what is a spell's description? One might ask? Well, since that might be a pretty important game term, perhaps this mention of the term in a certain context actually refers back to another rule where this is actually defined and explained (yup, sort of like that other term we've been talking about):
The spell is written with the parameter "Range: self (5-foot-radius)" and explicitly describes affecting a creature that is "within 5 feet" of the spellcaster. This is quite literally the spell telling you what the target of the spell is. It's jumping up and down and screaming and waving big red flags and holding up a huge glittery sign. You don't get to pick which of the 3 categories of targets are used -- by rule, the spell's description tells you which type is targeted. When an area is targeted, you target the area. The purpose of the spell is to affect an area with magic.
You are making my point for me. This is how we know where the errors are in the books. Reading Comprehension. We can recognize when a spell description is attempting to use the term "target" in a different context than what is established in the rules. In doing so, such descriptions are referring back to a rule that doesn't exist. If we were unable to read and understand that the description is attempting to use the word with a different meaning then we would just say things like "welp, that's the rule!" instead of realizing that there is no such rule, and the word is being used incorrectly. The wrong meaning for the word was chosen because that's not the meaning that's consistent with the rules.
Yeah, this argument just doesn't fly. We've been over this a ton of times now. The rule for targets is talking about what you are attempting to affect with the spell's magic at the moment that you are casting the spell -- it's part of the spellcasting process. You can try to affect a creature or an object or an area -- those are the 3 choices given. If you choose a spell that affects an area then that's what it does. You target a location for that area and the spell's magic fills it. Talking about a confused creature who wanders into an ongoing spell effect which is affecting the environment as intended, as having anything to do with what you intend to target with your spellcasting process is disingenuous. That's obviously not what the rule is saying. The text for the spell effect itself will describe what that lingering spell effect does to the environment and any creatures within it separately from the process which brings the spell effect into existence in the first place, which is the process that involves targeting the spell.
When casting the spell, the spell travels from the source to the target:
When it arrives there, the spell effect is released:
Once the spell is "released" (a term also used when Readying a spell), that spell is gone. The spellcaster has no more control from there. He was in control as he was targeting something with his spell. Then he casts it and it's released into the environment. The targeting process is done, the spell effect now does what it does. This is all in the rules, but it does require a bit of reading comprehension as you said.
Notice also that the clear path rule specifically prohibits a spell from targeting something that is behind total cover. But, a Fireball spell can still affect such creatures. How? Not by targeting them, that's for sure, since that would break at least two core rules of spellcasting (including that the target must be within range).
Ummm . . .
That sure looks like 3 meanings of target to me. This looks to me like the rule is that a spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect.
This doesn't matter at all. A spell sitting on a spell scroll does what it does. It's up to the Wizard who discovers it to study it, experiment with it and ultimately learn exactly what it is, what it does and how it works so that he can use it correctly.
Uhh . . .
It's . . . the rule.
This is some fine reading -- it's always fun to read about the game. But just keep in mind that this is an opinion by an author on a website. He does not quote most of the relevant general rules for spellcasting directly. Instead, he quotes a lot of tweets. It's just important to recognize that content like this is not Rules As Written. The Rules As Written are the rules as they are written.
I'll point out one portion of the article here:
Yep, that's what he says about targeting. It says "yeah, sure, it says that the range is "Self (5-foot-radius)" but go ahead and ignore all of the rules which dictate how that spell parameter actually functions because this change was just made to prevent the spell from working in combination with some other game features.
That is incredibly absurd.
This is an example of -- yeah, so the common interpretation of how the spell works is like this . . . buuut, it really can't work that way so let's just pretend we didn't notice.
Just because something has become the common interpretation does not make it consistent with the Rules As Written.
I've already told you several times that there are actually two important indicators. The first is the Range parameter -- in the online versions of the spells they've done a pretty good job of updating this parameter -- the primary purpose is so that a user can quickly scan through a long list of spells and see right away which ones are AoE spells and which ones are not.
But the more important indicator is in the text for the spell effect. Whenever a spell actually targets something, it uses the phrase "within range". If instead a spell refers to something that is required to be "within 5 feet of you", now we are talking about a defined size and shape of an area with the origin at the spellcaster. All spells are carefully written in that style for exactly this reason.
There doesn't need to be anything perceptible in the area. The entire area is ready to interact with the exact place where the attack is made. That's the effect. Yes, the "5 feet" indicates a sort of "range" for the attack, only because you are at the center of the sphere and it extends outwards 5 feet from you and the creature must be within that space. It must be within 5 feet of you. This hard-coded numeric reference indicates the size of an area.
Ok, so I was in a hurry in my previous post and didn't get a chance to fully discuss Lightning Lure:
The thematic picture that they are going for with lightning lure is to use it like a stereotypical whip-like weapon which reaches out and grabs something and pulls it back in towards you. The most obvious way to design such a spell is to just declare that the spell has a range of 15 feet and that you target a creature "within range". You then declare that part of the effect is that the target creature is pulled 10 feet closer to you.
There's one small, subtle problem with this. Spell effects never refer to the source of the spell. This is consistent design throughout the whole game. The spell itself has no memory of its source. The spell is cast from the source to the target. When it gets there, the spell effect is released into existence. But it doesn't remember where it came from, in which direction or how far away. Because that's just not part of the spell effect. The spell effect is only concerned with what is going on at its target location. So, there is no way for the above spell to actually be written that way, because it wouldn't know in which direction to "pull" the creature.
So, what they did instead was to make the spellcaster's location known to the spell. You do this by casting an AoE spell ON the spellcaster or his location so that the origin point for the AoE coincides with the spellcaster's location. The AoE spell effect knows where its point of origin is, but it doesn't know where the spellcaster is. It just so happens that these are at the same place for AoE spells which have the "Range: self (area)" notation. This allow them to create a spell description that says that it "pulls the creature towards you". All spells which push a creature away from you or pull a creature towards you would need to be written like this (although I wouldn't be surprised if a few melee spell attack spells ignore this design pattern).
Notice that an AoE spell is aware of its point of origin because the spell targets the entire area, thereby affecting the entire area with its magic -- and the point of origin is part of the area for the purposes of targeting. So the spell effect can refer to it.
So, because it's created this way, the Lightning Lure spell becomes an AoE spell, even though the flavor of the effect is that a streak of lightning reaches out from the spellcaster to any creature within the area (not within range, within the area) and pulls that creature towards the spellcaster.
It's not persistent at all. 90 out of the 98 spells from the core source books really do go out of their way to remain consistent with the rules. I've listed them all for you in a previous post.
Where it does get a bit trickier is for those couple of spells such as Lightning Lure and Slow which describe a process of choosing which of the creatures in the area will be affected. This is definitely still not what an AoE spell is targeting, but the distinction does become a bit more confusing for those spells than it is for a basic spell such as Fireball.
Yes, I acknowledged this one before. This is the one and only place in the entirety of Chapter 10 where the word "Target" doesn't seem to really fit with anything. It doesn't really fit with what you are saying, and it doesn't really fit with what I am saying. I honestly don't really know what that line is actually trying to say -- whatever was actually intended, it really deserves to be cleaned up via errata to become clearer.
If that line is really talking about targeting yourself simply because you happen to be standing anywhere inside of an AoE that you created (and not necessarily at the origin), then it would be sort of confirming a corner-case for a rule that aligns with what you're saying. But the general case for that doesn't exist anywhere, so it really feel like that can't really be what it means. I also sort of read this to be trying to talk about how you (the creature) can be the origin point for certain types of AoE spells that you cast, instead of that always being a point in space at your location -- but that was sort of already covered in the rules for Range.
I know for certain that you guys won't like this explanation, but this really feels to me like once upon a time in the development cycle for 5e, pre-2014 release, there was some testing material where creatures that were affected by an AoE really were considered to be targets. Then, by the time the game was actually released, this had been changed. But there are bits and pieces of the old design still floating around within the rules. This has definitely happened in other aspects of the rules as well. The big one that always sticks out to me is that there was once clearly a concept of group stealth and/or group surprise. It's beyond the scope here, but if you go down that rabbit hole there is clear evidence of that still sitting in the existing rules that never got cleaned up.
So, I guess what do you do about that line? It's using the alternate meaning for target in a corner case when it was never generally used that way for all cases. Do we ignore this? Do we actually apply the rule that way only for that corner case? Like, ok, if the spellcaster is literally one of the creatures that is in the AoE then the spellcaster and only the spellcaster can be considered to be a target. That's just weird to me, although that's probably technically the RAW answer.
I will be ignoring this line because it doesn't fit with the rest of how spellcasting works at all. You guys can go ahead and ignore that line or choose to enforce that line as you wish.
For reference:
You're using that line way too narrowly. We've already discussed that a valid target doesn't actually have to be affected simply because you can miss your target.
But besides that, you're missing which part of that sentence is emphasized. It's talking about needing to aim your spell at something. This sentence is not trying to box in exactly what it means to be a valid target -- it's just tacking on for what purpose you would generally be trying to target something -- to affect it with magic. The part of the rule which defines precisely what are the choices for a valid target is the second sentence, where the 3 categories of targets are given.
But these two sentences are meant to run together as one idea which explains what the target of the spell is. It's the thing over there that I'm trying to affect with a magic spell. Maybe that's a creature -- if so, target the creature. Maybe it's an object -- if so, target the object. Maybe that's an area / volume in space. If so, target that area. The spell's description will tell you which one it is! This rule is so simple -- it's right there in the text. It's maddening to keep reexplaining it.
I honestly have no idea why Hypnotic Pattern was brought up. If you're making a point there then please expand, otherwise, maybe we can just ignore it.
It doesn't matter at all what the intended final result is when the usage of this spell has come and gone. What we are talking about are the technical mechanism which are actually making that final result happen. Booming Blade explicitly uses the parameter "Range: self (5-foot-radius)" and the text explicitly refers to "within 5 feet" instead of "within range". These things mean something mechanically. The final result is the same -- that creature is affected. But how we get there is important when trying to consider whether or not the spell interacts properly with other Feats and Features such as War Caster.
That rule is simply differentiating between the fact that some spells target the spellcaster and affect only the spellcaster which falls under the "creature target" category, and other spells target the spellcaster but are AoE spells which affect the nearby area and those fall under the "area target" category -- even though both of those have a range of self. It also is how the rules mention that a point of origin can be a creature instead of a point in space. The point of origin for these spells (either the spellcaster or the spellcaster's location) must still be targeted for these types of spells even though we know that the options are severely limited by the range of the spell.
For Booming Blade, yes you do choose the point of origin and yes the rules state that it must be the target of the spell. It's one of the 3 target categories:
For an area of effect, you target a point of origin.
It must always be the spell's target only for AoE spells. For other spells, you target something else. It's the sole target because that's the only thing that you are affecting with the spell's magic. The area. When the spell affects an area then the only target is that area's point of origin.
We can use Fireball as an example. From Chapter 10, we have:
That spell has a Range of 150, so that point in space can be anywhere within there. There doesn't have to be a single creature anywhere near there for you to successfully cast this spell. It simply is not a requirement to be able to cast the spell that any creatures at all are involved. That's because this is a spell that targets an area, not a creature. Maybe you just want to set something on fire. Maybe you just want to entertain a crowd with a big exploding ball in space. You can do that. You target whatever area you are trying to affect with magic. That's what AoE spells do and that's how they work.
There is nothing in the rules which spell out this usage of the range block. You will need to provide a reference that range self (5-foot radius) always means AoE sphere. It seems to me that if we exclude what we have in dispute, booming blade, green flame blade, and lightning lure; that every other case has an AoE type listed in the spell's effect. What place other than the effect block would be appropriate to include the Area of Effect? The vast majority of AoE's simply don't have any indicators in the range block that they are an AoE spell... Fireball, slow, hypnotic pattern, etc.
That's all fine, and the target of the spell is not self. That's just where the point of origin of the spell is.
I wouldn't say it's 'aware' of the point of origin. Lightning Lure is essentially a rope made of lightning. It comes from the point of origin, snags the target, then pulls it back towards the point of origin (which is you) up to 10-feet. The spell isn't acting with intent, it's being guided by the caster to perform the function of its effect.
But it does need to intend to affect the target. That is the reason behind targeting something for a spell.
And the point I'm making is that the spell is only capable of affecting the attack target with the effects of the magic of the spell. That is what makes it a target, as defined by the first sentence of the target section of ch 10. The effect says nothing about affecting the area, it says everything about affecting the attack target.
Hypnotic pattern was an example which explains your question "If you are targeting an area, what more can you do?" you can... affect an area. And of course it doesn't have to be perceptible, but even slow talks about slowing time down locally. Booming blade just sheaths your attack target with booming energy. It does nothing at all to the area or space.
The most important thing in that post is...
There is no rule in the book that requires the point of origin to be the spell target.
This is the one thing you needed to prove. Your only argument is that you can't pick a point of origin without targeting it... But you don't pick the point of origin for self (XYZ). Rules say it is always self. So now what? Where is your rule that the point of origin must be self? Reasserting your claim doesn't prove anything.
You really think this one's a winner, huh
If you don't see the difference between "do what the spell explicitly says you can do" and "you're not allowed to do what the spell explicitly says you can do", then we're stopping right here, because you even don't seem to understand the argument you're making
Like, if there was a clause in GFB that says "you cannot apply the splash damage if you use the spell as a reaction" just as there was in haste, then OK, fine, that's what it says. I'd still say it was poorly written for all the other reasons, but they at least would have covered their ass on this point
These choices are all taken away from you if you use GFB with War Caster. You're not "free to choose" at all. That's so basic I'm just going to assume you're arguing it for the sake of arguing
Two creatures are standing next to each other. You hit one with GFB. Do you have the option of doing damage to the other one? GFB says yes, you can. JC says, "if you used War Caster, no you can't". That's not having a choice
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)
And yet, there actually are general rules that define and explain exactly what a spell target is for this game and how that concept is used. This is the Rules and Mechanics Forum and we are discussing what the actual mechanics are for targeting in the game because that's relevant to the question of the potential interaction between a certain spell and a Feat that was proposed in the OP. Those mechanics are designed to work a certain way and the general rules are written to explain how those mechanics work. Not just the rules for Targets -- all of the general rules for spellcasting are written in such a way that together they create a system for how to cast a spell.
For example, the target of a spell must be within range. The target of a spell cannot be behind total cover. Those are just two of the several super blatant reasons why an affected creature cannot be considered to be a target of a spell. Several important core rules for spellcasting would break down if that interpretation was used. As you said, that's reading comprehension at work.
Ok, just in general I really need to point out at this point that it appears as if you don't even read the answers to the questions that you are asking, because immediately after I answer the question you just ask it again. I don't really understand that but it has happened several times now. It's best to read the answer to a question before just asking the same question again.
So, let's go through this again. The size and shape of the AoE IS included in every effect block of every spell where there is an AoE. Look for the hard-coded number -- that's usually a critically important clue towards finding it. The reason why it's always explicitly described within the effect in the first place is because when the game was originally released, they generally didn't put the information about the Area in the spell parameter list -- probably because most spells do not create an Area of Effect, so the entry would just be "N/A" if it were included. But the earliest books did begin the convention of including the Area information in parentheses next to the Range entry for some spells. It would have been better if there was a separate line dedicated to "Area", but they didn't do that. It would have also been better if they had labeled the parameter in question "Range/Area" or "Range (Area)", but they didn't do that either. You just had to realize that that's what was going on when you saw the parentheses in the entry and you read the corresponding text for the Effect and you realize that the description aligns perfectly with the portion of the text that appeared in parentheses in the Range parameter.
Fast forward a few years to Digital Books and D&D Beyond database entries. These versions of the spells are the most up to date versions. D&D Beyond now explicitly calls that parameter "Range/Area" for all of its spell entries and they went through the painstaking process of reading through every spell and pulling out the information about the Area which was already present in the text and listing it in the parentheses of the Range/Area parameter. This is mainly just a tremendous quality of life improvement for players who are trying to search and filter and scan through lists of spells to determine at a glance which ones are AoE spells without having to open and read every spell description and having to put a little mark with a Sharpie next to the hard copy entries that are AoE spells.
Because the game explicitly labels the parameter "Range/Area", this refers to something in the game called "Range" and also something in the game called "Area". If a player is confused about what either of those terms mean, they flip to Chapter 10 where these terms are defined. There is a whole section in that Chapter called Range which explains what that word means, and there is also a whole section in that Chapter called Areas of Effect which explains what that word means. Those are the rules that you keep asking about. Something that appears in the Range entry is a Range. Something that appears in the Area entry is an Area. That's how it works. You won't get a line of text in the rules that explicitly says so -- that's not how the rules work. The rules work by seeing a game term and flipping back to the Chapter that explains that game term.
False. Already explained relentlessly and exhaustively. The target of an AoE spell is:
Yes, that's the flavor of what that spell does. In other words, a character in the game who was an outside observer would see exactly what you are describing when that spellcaster casts that spell and affects a nearby creature with it. Mechanically, the spell functions in a certain way in order to make this happen and that is specified by the spell description.
Remember, the term "point of origin" ONLY refers to AoE spells. So, the spell is doing exactly what you just described because it's an AoE spell. "You" happen to coincide with the location of the point of origin and so the spell is able to pull the creature "toward you" via this mechanism.
If instead the spell was written to just have a range of 15 feet and directly target a creature within range, it wouldn't be able to pull the creature "toward you" since the effect doesn't know where you are. For example, the Magic Missile could not have included an effect that pushes the target creature "away from you" based on how that spell is currently designed.
As another example, a spell which came to my mind is Gust of Wind, of which its main strategic purpose is to affect creatures such that they can "be pushed 15 feet away from you". Mentally, it might seem like this spell should act a lot like Magic Missile -- you picture wind shooting out from you towards a target creature. However, even before I looked up the spell, I knew how it "should" be designed in order to achieve the "from you" effect. And sure enough, I opened up that spell and it's listed with the parameter: "Range: self (60-foot-line)". It has to be written that way for the reasons that I'm describing here. But as a consequence, mechanically this spell is nothing like Magic Missile. It's an AoE spell which targets the spellcaster (in this case, the actual spellcaster, not the spellcaster's location) and it creates an AoE that has the indicated size and a shape (in this case, it's a Line, which is uncommon).
That's correct. You intend to affect a creature or an object or an area. The spell description tells you which one is targeted. When the spell description describes an area, that spell targets an area and that's exactly what is affected. The area.
That's close, but it's not correct. The spell is actually affecting an area when it is cast. The effect does define the area. It says "within 5 feet of you" and explicitly not "within range". That's literally the spell saying something about this issue. Not nothing. Something.
An Area of Effect is created by the spell. That Area contains an effect (hence the name). The text for this effect describes exactly how this effect goes on to affect creatures. Not to be confused with the thing that you are intending to affect with the casting of the spell, which is an area. Furthermore, this particular effect is really weak -- it runs out of gas as soon as it affects a single creature. That's why there is a selection process, similar to how things work for the Slow spell. If there are too many creatures within those Areas of Effect, the effect that resides there is not powerful enough to affect them all -- the effect gets all used up before that happens. So, a decision has to be made about how to determine which creatures are affected. These spells could have been written to determine this randomly. The authors chose not to write it that way -- instead, they allow the spellcaster to designate which creatures can be affected by the effect that fills the space. Again, not to be confused with the intended effect of actually casting the spell, which is to affect an area. The spell descriptions are telling you this via the Range parameter and by how the text specifies a size and shape of an area instead of targeting creatures within range.
Ok, this is an important point to clear up now as it is actually a separate concept.
It's important not to confuse the description that talks about "becomes sheathed in booming energy" with the actual effect that sits within the Area of Effect. Becoming sheathed in booming energy is a consequence of having interacted with the Area of Effect. This is what happens TO the creature -- that's the affect that the effect has ON the creature.
As an example, consider a spell such as Sunburst. This is an AoE spell with a lot of options regarding where to put the point of origin for an Area of Effect. This spell can result in a creature having the Blinded Condition placed upon it for up to a minute. This Blinded Condition is not THE effect that exists within the Area of Effect. It is a consequence of what happens to an affected creature. The effect that exists within the Area of Effect in this case is described as being a flash of brilliant sunlight which fills the area. But this effect in fact does not need to be perceptible at all. Again, the Blinded Condition here is not THE effect that exists in the space. It's a consequence of what happens to the creature when it is affected by that effect. Meanwhile, the target of that spell is a point in space within range which was targeted for the sole purpose of filling a particular area with a flash of brilliant sunlight.
100% False. It's actually still the same percentage of falseness regardless of what color you make the text or how large you make it. It's still just as false. This has been proven repeatedly and exhaustively through directly quoting several rules that actually exist in the general rules for spellcasting. Over and over again. A full explanation was given yet again in this very post.
OK, I'm going to respond to this one for now because it's annoying not having my points addressed. This is a crucial point, even if you're right about everything else, your whole interpretation still rides on this. Give me one single reference that proves what's on red. Thus far, you've only provided this:
Even by your own reference it doesn't need to target a point of origin. Booming Blade can target a creature, and that's completely consistent with this rule.
Prove otherwise.
I'm aware of the presence of cognitive dissonance in internet exchanges. I don't think there will be much to talk about after this. We've pretty much hashed out the issue. I'm just glad I could learn and better understand the rules on this issue. I won't be waking away empty handed.
What do you mean? You don't get to choose. The spell's description tells you which category for a target is used. In the case of Booming Blade, the size and shape of an area is listed in the text for the effect, the spell specifically doesn't say that it targets a creature within range, the range of the spell is listed as "self" and at least in the online entry there are parentheses next to the range which describes the size and shape of an Area. This is the spell telling you that this is an AoE spell and for an AoE spell you target "a point of origin for an Area of Effect".
Are you asking for quotes of all of the rules which create this spellcasting system all over again? Let's take it from the top:
The Rules of Magic --> Spellcasting:
So basically, magic is everywhere and we can harness it for a specific purpose by casting a spell. Fine.
The main example given for the source of a spell is a spellcaster, which can be a character class or a monster. A common interpretation also asserts that Magic Items can also cast spells, but this is open to debate.
Ok, but what is a spell and how do we cast it?
As we might see later, this releasing of the raw magic is the last point at which the spellcaster has control of the spell. In fact, according to the rules for the Ready Action, the spell has already been cast by this point, but apparently the common interpretation is that it's still possible to choose your target right up until the moment that the spellcaster releases the raw magic:
This emphasizes the timing of what happens when casting a spell and at which point the target of the spell is targeted.
Now, apparently the idea of holding and releasing the raw magic was a simplification (rules inconsistency?). The more detailed explanation is here:
Ok, great. So, now that we know in general that it's possible to harness and subsequently release the world's magic by casting a spell -- how exactly do we go about casting a spell?
So, there is a structure to each spell and a system for casting it according to the rules that relate to a number of key concepts, such as casting time, range, components, duration, targets, areas of effect, saving throws, attack rolls and combining magical effects. Each of those concepts gets its own subsection which houses all of the general rules, important terms and game concepts related to that aspect of casting a spell, and all of these rules work together in order to successfully cast a spell.
Ok, so why would I ever want to cast a spell in the first place? What is each spell trying to accomplish? How is the spell directed by the spellcaster in such a way that it attempts to accomplish the purpose of the spell? Answer:
So, the purpose of a spell and of casting that spell is to attempt to affect a target of the spell with the spell's magic. There are 3 options for doing this -- the spell description tells you which one to use, based on the purpose of that spell.
The spell description will require you to target a creature to be affected by the spell's magic if that's the purpose of that spell.
The spell description will require you to target an object to be affected by the spell's magic if that's the purpose of that spell.
The spell description will require you to target a point of origin for an area of effect to affect an area with the spell's magic if that's the purpose of that spell.
So, now that we know which type of target the spell description tells us to use, what are my limitations? How far away can my target be?
So, just to be clear, when we say that the target must be within range, what are some examples?
But wait a minute. If the target of my spell is a point in space and it has to be within range, what happens to the other half of the Area if I place the point in space at the edge of the range after the Area fully erupts?
Ok, but wait, how far away can the target be really? What is meant by within range? What is the maximum distance between the source and the target?
Wait, that last part is italicized by this Forum poster. Is that important? Yes. It's yet another indicator that when we are talking about an Area of Effect spell, that spell must target the point of origin for the Area of Effect. Since this entire section is talking about where you are allowed to target your spell, the spell must target self to remain in accordance with the rules, and the fact that the range of self "indicates" that the origin point must be here also means that the target of the spell must be the origin point of the Area of Effect (as has already been established previously when learning about the 3 options for the valid categories of targets).
But hold on, if the spellcaster is the source of the spell, and the spell is cast at its target to try to affect it with magic, what happens if there is an obstacle in the way?
So, just for the fun of it, what if we said that affected creatures within an Area of Effect were targets of the spell. Does that break any of these rules?
Yes. If the creature is behind an obstacle, you do not have a clear path to it, so it cannot be a target of the spell by rule -- but, that creature could still be located within an Area of Effect.
In addition, if a creature is too far away, it could be outside the range of the spell, disqualifying it from being a target of the spell -- but, that creature could still be located within an Area of Effect.
Furthermore, one of the previous rules goes out of its way to make sure that such creatures are appropriately affected. The rule was given above which says that the effects of the spell are not limited by its range once the spell is cast. When the spell is being cast and the targeting process is set, that target must be within range. But after that process is over with, the resulting effects are not limited by the range.
As long as we remember that the point of origin for an Area of Effect is the target of the AoE spell, each and every one of these rules work together in perfect harmony.
Since we're on the subject of Areas of Effect, there are some important rules in there as well. Those rules are written from the perspective of describing what an Area of Effect is, and how one comes into existence from its own perspective -- beginning from the moment that the point of origin is unleashed into existence and then referencing back to that point of origin. The mechanism which establishes exactly how that point of origin comes into existence in the first place was discussed in the rules for Targets. As such, these rules here have no need to refer to targeting since we are no longer talking about the spell itself, but about the Area that is created by it:
Next:
Yep, it does. Look for the hard-coded number that describes the size of an area and the corresponding description of a shape for that area.
In addition:
Yes, you position the point of origin, because that's the target of all AoE spells.
Perhaps we need an example:
That's right. You select it by targeting it with your spell.
So, that covers all of the general rules which are relevant to this discussion and how they all support my view of the spellcasting system in 5e. If that's not what you were asking for then my apologies. I'm getting tired of people telling me that there is no such rule and that I've never quoted a rule and various other falsehoods, so I've now put it all in one place. If this doesn't do it for you then I guess pretty soon we'll just agree to disagree because these are indeed the rules and they have been directly quoted.
Just so you know... data dumping a bunch of irrelevant stuff just makes you look petulant. I asked a very specific question, and it shouldn't have been difficult to answer. Let's see if you answered it somewhere in this.
I obviously know this. What I meant was that Booming Blade could target a creature (by effect) and be consistent with this targeting rule, because it only says you target one of the listed three.
Ironically, this works against your explanation of Booming Blade. Magic is everywhere in everything… so how do you “fill an area with magic” using a spell? It's already filled with magic, the spellcaster just needs to utilize the Weave to manifest it to their whim. So essentially your AoE explanation for Booming Blade was completely vacuous.
Amazing… so because it doesn't actually say the point of origin is the target, you're forced to insert it in there. But no… this section isn't meant to explain targets, it's meant to explain range. In doing so, they listed some different range scenarios and defined them in terms of range. It listed one scenario and said that means the range is self. It then listed another scenario and said that's also a range of self. If it wanted to say the point of origin is a target there, it would have said so. Inserting that in there is not RAW.
So long as you ignore every rule that conflicts with it… like “If you are in the area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself.”
So you didn't answer the question. You just data dumped a bunch of stuff and tried to speculate by inserting assumptions and extrapolate interpretations that aren't explicitly present in the source material.
To address further errors that aren't so obvious, you seem to misinterpret the following: "A spell’s description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect."
You've said that an AoE always targets the point of origin. This isn't what the rule is stating. It's saying that when you target the point of origin, it's always an AoE. This doesn’t mean an AoE will always target the point of origin. That would be an affirming the consequent fallacy. You essentially read it backwards.
“Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how you position its point of origin.”
The portion where it says "you position" is obviously in cases where you are able to position the point of origin yourself, which we know doesn't apply to self (XYZ). In that case you are always the point of origin, so you target something else. Like creatures. “But you can't target creatures with an AoE” which is started nowhere in the book. To the contrary, creatures are stated targets for AoE spells in several spell descriptions and the targeting yourself section portion of the targets section of chapter 10. So there is RAW support for targeting creatures with an AoE.
And lastly, your big argument that Self (5-foot radius) means there's an AoE. You mostly base this off of the Range/Area notation in the app. The problem with this is it isn't official RAW. The notation was likely a quality of life change for convenience, not an official change in the rules. If they wanted to change the rules, there would be an errata. As of yet, there's expansion of the range rules officially to explain the Range/Area notation. You should consider it as unofficial as you consider the Sage Advice you're so easy to dismiss.
The fact is, every spell description of an AoE spell will tell you if it's an AoE by using terms in the effect portion. The reason is in the effect is because that's the appropriate place to describe the Area of Effect. Booming Blade doesn't have any description of an AoE in its effect. The effect only affects the attack target which makes the attack target the intended target. The target is not space, the rules even explicitly state the point of origin isn't in space… it is you. The target isn't you either, all effects are applied to the target which is the creature you attack.
I suppose you could make booming blade a 5' emanation, in which you choose a single target within range. I don't know if I like that wording, but it could potentially accomplish what I think you are describing. As you say, I do no expect booming blade to be addressed explicitly in the new PHB, so you would need some kind of new general rule that would implicitly rewrite the range of booming blade and similar spells. I just don't see that happening. In terms of the topic of the thread, I really don't think any emanation information is going to change the way booming blade interacts (or, more accurately, does not interact) with dissonant whispers, though.
As an aside, when a person makes nonsense arguments, nobody is required to reply to attempt to fact-check them over and over. I mean, if you enjoy doing it, then follow your bliss. But I'm just saying there's plenty of room in this thread for a good conversation, even with someone on mute. I can attest that my experience has not been not worse off for it.
"Not all those who wander are lost"