Oh, we are not moving onto that until you address these problems. These are core issues and you need to reconcile them before we talk about that.
I certainly don't need to do any such thing. I am not the one that is confused about the rules. You are the one that is constantly asking questions and making incorrect statements after receiving the correct answers over and over again. I am providing answers for you to help you learn. If you are no longer interested in learning about Rules and Mechanics for the game, maybe stop asking questions in the Rules and Mechanics Forum, that's up to you. But if you are still interested in learning something then you should probably work on your tone.
As such, I've decided that the best way for this conversation to move forward is by responding to some answers that are given to my Socratic questions that I posed back on Post #229. I await your answers.
Specifically the following condition that disqualifies a spell from being Twinned:
The spell can force more than one creature to make a saving throw before the spell’s duration expires.
Now, considering the only two requirements to be able to use Twinned Spell are that it can't target Self and can't target multiple creatures at its current level, we have an official ruling listing any creature within an AoE as a target of a spell. That settles the entire question.
If this isn't the case, then it means the range alone isn't enough to make something an AoE.
Range has nothing to do with the AoE of a spell except that the point of origin must be within range since that's the target of an AoE spell. How the AoE itself is specified has nothing at all to do with the range.
The range is just a description of how far away it can hit.
No. The range of a spell is an important, mechanically significant property of every single spell in the game. There is a whole section within the general rules for spellcasting dedicated to defining and explaining this term. The range of a spell is the maximum distance between the source of the spell and the target of a spell.
For it to qualify as an AoE, it would have to be able to affect more than one target in that range at the same time (without modifiers such as Twinned Spell).
First of all, no targets are ever affected by the effect that is created within the AoE because the target of the spell is the point of origin for the Area.
Even if you are actually talking about the number of affected creatures -- there is absolutely no rule whatsoever about any minimum number of creatures that must be affected in order for something to qualify as an AoE spell. That is completely false and totally fabricated. There can be AoE spells that don't affect creatures at all. Or, some other ones might affect lots of creatures. That has absolutely nothing at all to do with what makes something an AoE.
Just to pick a quick and easy example, the spell Create or Destroy Water is an AoE spell that doesn't mention anything about affecting any creatures.
Specifically the following condition that disqualifies a spell from being Twinned:
The spell can force more than one creature to make a saving throw before the spell’s duration expires.
Now, considering the only two requirements to be able to use Twinned Spell are that it can't target Self and can't target multiple creatures at its current level, we have an official ruling listing any creature within an AoE as a target of a spell. That settles the entire question.
What are you talking about? First of all, Sage Advice is not RAW. Second, there is absolutely nothing that you are pointing to here that says or even remotely implies that "any creature within an AoE is a target of a spell". How in the world did you come to that conclusion? That note about saving throws doesn't even have anything to do with AoE spells at all. In fact, this entire Sage Advice answer regarding Twinned Spell is very carefully written to never use the word "Target" incorrectly. In fact, the entirety of the Sage Advice Compendium uses the word "Target" 83 times and it's only used incorrectly 1 time (in the discussion about the antipathy/sympathy spell).
Specifically the following condition that disqualifies a spell from being Twinned:
The spell can force more than one creature to make a saving throw before the spell’s duration expires.
Now, considering the only two requirements to be able to use Twinned Spell are that it can't target Self and can't target multiple creatures at its current level, we have an official ruling listing any creature within an AoE as a target of a spell. That settles the entire question.
What are you talking about? First of all, Sage Advice is not RAW. Second, there is absolutely nothing that you are pointing to here that says or even remotely implies that "any creature within an AoE is a target of a spell". How in the world did you come to that conclusion? That note about saving throws doesn't even have anything to do with AoE spells at all. In fact, this entire Sage Advice answer regarding Twinned Spell is very carefully written to never use the word "Target" incorrectly. In fact, the entirety of the Sage Advice Compendium uses the word "Target" 83 times and it's only used incorrectly 1 time (in the discussion about the antipathy/sympathy spell).
First off, no amount of denying things can make you right. The game's design (by the words of the designers) has been shown repeatedly throughout the thread.
Second, Sage Advice Compendium rulings are considered official/RAW. If it's in the Sage Advice Compendium, it has the same level of power as errata. (The same doesn't apply to dev tweets.)
Third, I was demonstrating that, despite it not explicitly saying "target" in that line, it still disqualifies the spell for Twinned Spell. And the only possible reason for that would be that it can target multiple creatures, because it's obvious that it's not because the spell has a range of Self for those instances. Ergo, each creature within is considered a target by the rules that govern targeting creatures with spells, such as Twinned Spell.
Oh, we are not moving onto that until you address these problems. These are core issues and you need to reconcile them before we talk about that.
I certainly don't need to do any such thing. I am not the one that is confused about the rules.
No... you clearly are. You can't even reconcile your position with the general rules explicitly stated in the PHB, let alone all the specific rules in the spell descriptions. When your interpretation can't reconcile general rules (like self targeting), you're probably mistaken. It's honestly baffling you won't even consider you've misunderstood after every rule you've waved.
It's not like your question hasn't been answered... The general rule for an AoE is that it targets the point of origin... but it also can target affected creatures in the AoE. With the affected creatures, their targeting doesn't have to be in range because the the primary target is the point of origin (which is within range) and creatures within can be targeted for the AoE, which is automatic (as in fireball) or select target (as in slow) depending on the spell.
For Self (XYZ) AoE spells, the point of origin doesn't necessarily need to be targeted because it's always the caster per the rules, and that section does not require the point of origin to be targeted. For a spell like burning hands, you pick a direction and target the creatures within the AoE.
These are consistent with the general rules of the game, unless you can point out a rule they explicitly violate... Although if we're playing fair, I ought to be able to dismiss conflicting rules just as you do... but I won't, so feel free to pick this apart.
Second, Sage Advice Compendium rulings are considered official/RAW. If it's in the Sage Advice Compendium, it has the same level of power as errata. (The same doesn't apply to dev tweets.)
No, they are not RAW because they aren't rules. The Sage Advice Compendium compiles official rulings and interpretations and provide some intended meanings for some rules. None of those are the actual words that are written in the Rule Books. This is the Rules and Mechanics Forum.
I have denied nothing. I have directly quoted the actual rules that exist in the Rule Books, and I have explained their meaning. I have answered questions about the topic and I have corrected people when they are wrong. None of that should have a negative connotation -- it's a useful service to the community and people can either learn something from it or not.
Third, I was demonstrating that, despite it not explicitly saying "target" in that line, it still disqualifies the spell for Twinned Spell. And the only possible reason for that would be that it can target multiple creatures, because it's obvious that it's not because the spell has a range of Self for those instances. Ergo, each creature within is considered a target by the rules that govern targeting creatures with spells, such as Twinned Spell.
This is all totally false, and your conclusion doesn't even follow at all from your premise.
The reason why that Sage Advice answer doesn't explicitly refer to affected creatures as targets is because creatures affected by an AoE are not targets of the spell. The entire Sage Advice Compendium is extremely carefully written in a manner that intentionally avoids making that mistake. And why do you think that any of that even has anything to do with AoE spells? Just because a spell forces more than one creature to make a saving throw doesn't mean that it's an AoE spell. There are tons and tons of spells in the game which directly target creatures without ever creating an AoE. A common example of such a spell is Magic Missile. Any spell that works like Magic Missile but requires the target creatures to make a saving throw would fall under this portion of the Sage Advice that you are quoting. Again, nothing at all to do with AoE spells. All AoE spells are automatically disqualified from working with Twinned Spell because AoE spells do not target creatures, they target the point of origin for an Area of Effect.
Whatever you thought that you were "demonstrating" is totally ineffective.
I am not the one that is confused about the rules.
No... you clearly are. You can't even reconcile your position with the general rules explicitly stated in the PHB, let alone all the specific rules in the spell descriptions. When your interpretation can't reconcile general rules (like self targeting), you're probably mistaken. It's honestly baffling you won't even consider you've misunderstood after every rule you've waved.
Totally false. My position reconciles perfectly with the general rules for spellcasting except for the one line that's related to Self-Targeting, which is poorly written. It is either talking about the cases where the spellcaster is a point of origin for the AoE, or they meant "affect" but mistakenly said "target". It would be a mistake because it would be clarifying a corner case in a manner that is not consistent with the regular cases. That's just obvious, but if you want to throw your hands up and cry foul at that explanation, then go for it. Nobody is stopping you from playing the game however you want. I am 100% correct about how this system works. Meanwhile, your interpretation completely conflicts with several of the core rules and you've flatly refused to attempt to reconcile those problems with your interpretation that I asked about on that topic twice already.
It's not like your question hasn't been answered... The general rule for an AoE is that it targets the point of origin... but it also can target affected creatures in the AoE. With the affected creatures, their targeting doesn't have to be in range because the the primary target is the point of origin (which is within range) and creatures within can be targeted for the AoE, which is automatic (as in fireball) or select target (as in slow) depending on the spell.
Literally none of this is in the rules. You've just made all of this up out of thin air. Not only is none of this in the rules, but it directly conflicts with several of the general rules for spellcasting.
Show me where the rules say that the target of a spell can be outside of the range. I'll show you an actual rule:
Range
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range.
Show me the general rule for spellcasting that says that a spell can target affected creatures in the AoE. I'll show you two actual rules:
A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets . . . a point of origin for an area of effect
Range
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range . . . 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.
For Self (XYZ) AoE spells, the point of origin doesn't necessarily need to be targeted because it's always the caster per the rules, and that section does not require the point of origin to be targeted. For a spell like burning hands, you pick a direction and target the creatures within the AoE.
All of this is completely made up. There are absolutely no rules whatsoever that say anything like this. See the above two quoted rules for what the rules actually say on this matter.
These are consistent with the general rules of the game, unless you can point out a rule they explicitly violate... Although if we're playing fair, I ought to be able to dismiss conflicting rules just as you do... but I won't, so feel free to pick this apart.
No, your interpretation of targeting absolutely is not consistent with the general rules for spellcasting. If you had taken a moment to read my Post #229 above and responded to the questions that I posed to the group there, you would already know this:
In addition to the 3 rules that were just quoted above, there is also:
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.
You might not have a clear path to some of the affected creatures within an AoE so they cannot be valid spell targets. But they should still be valid affected creatures of an AoE according to the rules for Areas of Effect. Your interpretation will not function correctly in these situations.
So, that's 4 core rules related to categories of targeting, range restrictions and definitions, and the clear path targeting rule that all function incorrectly under your interpretation. All 4 of these rules are not corner cases -- they are core concepts for successfully casting a spell in 5e.
I've told you exactly how spellcasting actually works in 5e a huge number of times now. It's up to you if you want to keep your head in the sand.
No... you clearly are. You can't even reconcile your position with the general rules explicitly stated in the PHB, let alone all the specific rules in the spell descriptions. When your interpretation can't reconcile general rules (like self targeting), you're probably mistaken. It's honestly baffling you won't even consider you've misunderstood after every rule you've waved.
Totally false. My position reconciles perfectly with the general rules for spellcasting except for the one line that's related to Self-Targeting, which is poorly written. It is either talking about the cases where the spellcaster is a point of origin for the AoE, or they meant "affect" but mistakenly said "target". It would be a mistake because it would be clarifying a corner case in a manner that is not consistent with the regular cases. That's just obvious, but if you want to throw your hands up and cry foul at that explanation, then go for it. Nobody is stopping you from playing the game however you want. I am 100% correct about how this system works. Meanwhile, your interpretation completely conflicts with several of the core rules and you've flatly refused to attempt to reconcile those problems with your interpretation that I asked about on that topic twice already.
Right... you can never be wrong if all conflicting information is... wrong by default.
It's not like your question hasn't been answered... The general rule for an AoE is that it targets the point of origin... but it also can target affected creatures in the AoE. With the affected creatures, their targeting doesn't have to be in range because the the primary target is the point of origin (which is within range) and creatures within can be targeted for the AoE, which is automatic (as in fireball) or select target (as in slow) depending on the spell.
Literally none of this is in the rules. You've just made all of this up out of thin air. Not only is none of this in the rules, but it directly conflicts with several of the general rules for spellcasting.
Literally none? I think you should be more careful because even you agree AoEs generally target the point of origin.
Show me where the rules say that the target of a spell can be outside of the range. I'll show you an actual rule:
Range
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range.
Show me the general rule for spellcasting that says that a spell can target affected creatures in the AoE. I'll show you two actual rules:
A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets . . . a point of origin for an area of effect
Range
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range . . . 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.
Sure. The Targets in Areas of Effect table from the DMG specify that creatures affected an AoE are considered targets of the AoE. PHB says:
Once a spell is cast, its effects aren’t limited by its range, unless the spell’s description says otherwise.
This tells us the effects of spells aren't limited by the range, so you can potentially affect creatures outside range with the AoE spell. Since these affected creatures are considered targets, the creatures targeted by the AoE are out of range of the spell. This is a similar situation to Chain Lightning targeting creatures outside of range. It's not a problem because the primary target (the point of origin) is within range, thus properly limiting spell.
I gave a general rule which states you can target creatures in an AoE, but there are also plenty of spell descriptions that say you can as well. You're already familiar with some of them... You just dismiss them, thus making yourself right by default. But I've reconciled them.
For Self (XYZ) AoE spells, the point of origin doesn't necessarily need to be targeted because it's always the caster per the rules, and that section does not require the point of origin to be targeted. For a spell like burning hands, you pick a direction and target the creatures within the AoE.
All of this is completely made up. There are absolutely no rules whatsoever that say anything like this. See the above two quoted rules for what the rules actually say on this matter.
Mhmmmm...
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.
These are consistent with the general rules of the game, unless you can point out a rule they explicitly violate... Although if we're playing fair, I ought to be able to dismiss conflicting rules just as you do... but I won't, so feel free to pick this apart.
No, your interpretation of targeting absolutely is not consistent with the general rules for spellcasting. If you had taken a moment to read my Post #229 above and responded to the questions that I posed to the group there, you would already know this:
I did respond to your questions... "So, the question is . . . can you explain this?" The answer is yes, all those spell descriptions are consistent with my explanation. "Judging only from the above text . . . what does it look like the general rule probably is?" I explained what the general rule is.
In addition to the 3 rules that were just quoted above, there is also:
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.
You might not have a clear path to some of the affected creatures within an AoE so they cannot be valid spell targets. But they should still be valid affected creatures of an AoE according to the rules for Areas of Effect. Your interpretation will not function correctly in these situations.
So, that's 4 core rules related to categories of targeting, range restrictions and definitions, and the clear path targeting rule that all function incorrectly under your interpretation. All 4 of these rules are not corner cases -- they are core concepts for successfully casting a spell in 5e.
Do you honestly think what I explained is inconsistent with 'clear path to target' rules? That rule is not being challenged on either side. It's not really relevant to this topic.
I've told you exactly how spellcasting actually works in 5e a huge number of times now. It's up to you if you want to keep your head in the sand.
So let me get this straight... You challenge us to explain how AoE spells work given all the descriptions you listed... specifically challenging the interpretation that AoE spells can target creatures within... Then you say "I already explained this" when someone takes up the challenge? Why did you even bring it up if you didn't want to hear disagreement?
For it to qualify as an AoE, it would have to be able to affect more than one target in that range at the same time (without modifiers such as Twinned Spell).
So, you wouldn't classify aura of vitality as an AoE? That seems... dubious
Healing energy radiates from you in an aura with a 30-foot radius. Until the spell ends, the aura moves with you, centered on you. You can use a bonus action to cause one creature in the aura (including you) to regain 2d6 hit points.
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)
It isn’t a cone, cylinder, line, or sphere, is it? IT sure doesn’t call itself any of those.
But moreover, the mechanics of this spell just describe using your BA to affect a creature within a range of the caster. So no, it sounds a lot like another emanation.
Emanations don't exist as a rules concept in 5e, sadly
aura of vitality is a 30-ft sphere centered on you
If you're going to argue that it's only an AoE if the description contains one of those specific words, then you're going to have to explain the functional difference between antimagic field (which says "sphere") and globe of invulnerability (which doesn't, despite its name), or why arms of hadar isn't an AoE even though it literally says it affects "each creature in that area"
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I mean, you picked a whole bunch of spells with the same mechanics. Ones that are described by emanations.
If your argument is really that you can infer a some things based on information not presented in the rules sometimes then go ahead and make it and again explain why context doesn’t tell you what "target” means again. It’s like having your cake and eating it too.
Seriously? The word "emanation" doesn't appear once in the 5e PHB or DMG. You were saying something about "information not presented in the rules"?
As for the targeting stuff, again, you seem to have me confused with someone else
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)
Hold on. So if you agree on what a target it, there is no problem. War Caster makes no preclusion based on shape or area at all. Only targets.
My position in this thread from the beginning has been that booming blade is so sloppily worded, and that the definitions of terms like "target" are so imprecise, that multiple interpretations of its interaction with War Caster are defensible and that there is no clear RAW interpretation
To pick another example that came up earlier, I disagree with you that fireball should be a valid option for War Caster if it happens to only hit one person, but I certainly see how you got there
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)
Sure. The Targets in Areas of Effect table from the DMG specify that creatures affected an AoE are considered targets of the AoE. PHB says:
Once a spell is cast, its effects aren’t limited by its range, unless the spell’s description says otherwise.
And I had asked for a citation of a general rule for spellcasting that specifies that creatures that are affected by an AoE are targets of the spell.
As already explained a few times now, the DMG table is not a general rule for spellcasting about targeting. This section of the DMG is dedicated to making suggestions to the DM for how to handle AoE spells when they are running a game that uses the Theatre of Mind style of gameplay, since that is not the default style that is handled by the rules. This text attempts to refer back to a general rule for spellcasting, but that rule doesn't exist. The actual rule says something else that is inconsistent with how this text is using the term.
I gave a general rule which states you can target creatures in an AoE, but there are also plenty of spell descriptions that say you can as well. You're already familiar with some of them... You just dismiss them, thus making yourself right by default. But I've reconciled them.
You absolutely did not provide any such general rule since that general rule does not exist. If you refer back to my Post #229 which you keep avoiding, you will see how the spells in this game are generally written which conform to the actual rules of the game and how rare the exceptions are which erroneously attempt to refer back to a general rule that does not exist. You can continue to ignore it, but it's all right there in that Post clear as day.
You have reconciled nothing. In order to reconcile an erroneous spell description with a general rule that it is attempting to refer back to, that general rule has to actually exist.
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.
What point do you think you are making by highlighting these particular words? Hopefully you do know what that "also" in that statement actually refers to, right? You are making my point for me by highlighting this rule:
The target of an AoE spell is the point of origin. When the spell has a range of self and indicates an effect that comes from the spellcaster, then the point of origin for that Area is you. Therefore, you are the target of that spell. Simple stuff.
I did respond to your questions... "So, the question is . . . can you explain this?" The answer is yes, all those spell descriptions are consistent with my explanation. "Judging only from the above text . . . what does it look like the general rule probably is?" I explained what the general rule is.
Is that really your answer? Well, that is a nonsensical answer. I had asked for the answers to be given in a sensible manner so that they could provide some value to the discussion. In fact, only 2 out of the 26 AoE damage spells are consistent with your explanation of the general rules, and both of those 2 spells are attempting to refer back to a general rule that doesn't exist.
If you are looking through all of the spell descriptions given and you are judging your answer only based on that text . . . and you've somehow come up with your interpretation for the general rules for spellcasting, then some extraordinarily obvious pattern recognition is being missed. If it's not possible for you to address what the text in the game actually says in sensible manner, then it's time to take a second look at your interpretation and perhaps actually begin listening to the other forum posters who have been attempting to share the correct information about the game with you.
In addition to the 3 rules that were just quoted above, there is also:
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.
You might not have a clear path to some of the affected creatures within an AoE so they cannot be valid spell targets. But they should still be valid affected creatures of an AoE according to the rules for Areas of Effect. Your interpretation will not function correctly in these situations.
So, that's 4 core rules related to categories of targeting, range restrictions and definitions, and the clear path targeting rule that all function incorrectly under your interpretation. All 4 of these rules are not corner cases -- they are core concepts for successfully casting a spell in 5e.
Do you honestly think what I explained is inconsistent with 'clear path to target' rules? That rule is not being challenged on either side. It's not really relevant to this topic.
This is absolutely critical and central to this topic since we are discussing how targeting works in the game so that we can get on the same page about the question in the OP about how a specific spell works with the War Caster Feat.
And I'll just generally point out here that you've just asked a question where the answer to that question was given literally 4 lines of text above where you've posted your question. This has happened quite a bit in this thread. Asking the same questions over and over again right after it's just been answered bloats and derails the thread.
Since you've asked again, I'll explain it again:
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.
You might not have a clear path to some of the affected creatures within an AoE so they cannot be valid spell targets. But they should still be valid affected creatures of an AoE according to the rules for Areas of Effect. Your interpretation will not function correctly in these situations.
Why did you even bring it up if you didn't want to hear disagreement?
When you disagree with someone who has already provided the correct answer, the best thing to do is to quote an actual rule that supports your claim. In this case, such a rule does not exist. The spellcasting system for this game was designed a certain way, it is written a certain way and it works a certain way. The spells are generally written a certain way to conform with the general rules. A disagreement needs to have some merit, backed up with some sort of facts -- otherwise, it just doesn't really mean anything.
It isn’t a cone, cylinder, line, or sphere, is it? IT sure doesn’t call itself any of those.
But moreover, the mechanics of this spell just describe using your BA to affect a creature within a range of the caster. So no, it sounds a lot like another emanation.
An area in a 3d space with a defined radius is a sphere, by definition. It does not matter even one iota if the Area of Effect for a spell calls itself a sphere or not. Areas of Effect do not even have to conform to any of the standard shapes -- there's simply a mention that an AoE "typically" exists in one of those standard forms.
There is no such thing as an emanation spell. There are exactly three options for the target of a spell -- directly targeting a creature, directly targeting an object, or targeting a point of origin for an Area of Effect.
[...] This section of the DMG is dedicated to making suggestions to the DM for how to handle AoE spells when they are running a game that uses the Theatre of Mind style of gameplay, since that is not the default style that is handled by the rules. [...]
Playing on a grid is a variant, not the default style (PHB, p. 192)
I gave a general rule which states you can target creatures in an AoE, but there are also plenty of spell descriptions that say you can as well. You're already familiar with some of them... You just dismiss them, thus making yourself right by default. But I've reconciled them.
You absolutely did not provide any such general rule since that general rule does not exist. If you refer back to my Post #229 which you keep avoiding, you will see how the spells in this game are generally written which conform to the actual rules of the game and how rare the exceptions are which erroneously attempt to refer back to a general rule that does not exist. You can continue to ignore it, but it's all right there in that Post clear as day.
Ignore it? You mean… like how you ignore self targeting, the DMG Table, and spell descriptions? Yeah, I’ll ignore your baseless claims all day.
You have reconciled nothing. In order to reconcile an erroneous spell description with a general rule that it is attempting to refer back to, that general rule has to actually exist.
Then point out a rule this interpretation conflicts with… Because I’ve certainly pointed out more than one rule your interpretation is inconsistent with. Ignoring the contradictions is not a good argument.
In addition to the 3 rules that were just quoted above, there is also:
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.
You might not have a clear path to some of the affected creatures within an AoE so they cannot be valid spell targets. But they should still be valid affected creatures of an AoE according to the rules for Areas of Effect. Your interpretation will not function correctly in these situations.
So, that's 4 core rules related to categories of targeting, range restrictions and definitions, and the clear path targeting rule that all function incorrectly under your interpretation. All 4 of these rules are not corner cases -- they are core concepts for successfully casting a spell in 5e.
Do you honestly think what I explained is inconsistent with 'clear path to target' rules? That rule is not being challenged on either side. It's not really relevant to this topic.
This is absolutely critical and central to this topic since we are discussing how targeting works in the game so that we can get on the same page about the question in the OP about how a specific spell works with the War Caster Feat.
So you really honestly think this rule is important to war caster? A feat that requires opportunity to be provoked, which itself can't be done if they have total cover? Really? Honestly?? Ok... But, but don't tell anyone this secret... You can't attack someone... If they're behind a wall... Even if they're within 5 feet... Even with Booming Blade... Are we done now?
Why did you even bring it up if you didn't want to hear disagreement?
When you disagree with someone who has already provided the correct answer, the best thing to do is to quote an actual rule that supports your claim. In this case, such a rule does not exist. The spellcasting system for this game was designed a certain way, it is written a certain way and it works a certain way. The spells are generally written a certain way to conform with the general rules. A disagreement needs to have some merit, backed up with some sort of facts -- otherwise, it just doesn't really mean anything.
They exist... You just don't accept them. They don't count! And cherry picking makes you right!
If you are in the area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself.
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...
Each creature in a 20-foot radius must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
You alter time around up to six creatures of your choice in a 40-foot cube within range. Each target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be affected by this spell for the duration.
So if you want to pretend these don't say what they say, fine... but don't call it RAW... That's not RAW. Maybe you could argue RAI, but Sage Advice would also have to be valid for RAI... But don't call it RAW.
So anyways, you haven't cited rules for crucial claims you've made. There are two questions.
1. What rule can you cite which says with self (XYZ), the (XYZ) portion must be an area for an AoE?
2. What effect is written in the spell description of Booming Blade which specifies an AoE. And saying "The Effect that exists within the Area of Effect is the magical effect that fills up the sphere..." isn't gonna cut it. You actual need to cite something written in the spell effect.
[...] This section of the DMG is dedicated to making suggestions to the DM for how to handle AoE spells when they are running a game that uses the Theatre of Mind style of gameplay, since that is not the default style that is handled by the rules. [...]
Playing on a grid is a variant, not the default style (PHB, p. 192)
Ah yes, good catch. I had forgotten about that convention due to how much of the game so heavily relies on rules regarding knowing or tracking how many feet of distance is measured between two locations -- movement rules, jumping rules, equipment range rules, spellcasting range rules and so on, but that's fine.
The point there remains exactly the same. That DMG table is discussing how to deal with AoEs that are created by a spell when playing with a style where distances between things in the world are not being precisely tracked and can't be seen through any sort of visual aid. In the course of explaining a suggested procedure for doing that, the text attempts to refer back to a general rule for spellcasting that doesn't exist.
Ignore it? You mean… like how you ignore self targeting, the DMG Table, and spell descriptions? Yeah, I’ll ignore your baseless claims all day.
What do you mean? I have not ignored any of those things. In most cases, I was the first one who brought them up in order to point out the inconsistencies in the rules.
As has already been explained at least a half dozen times now, in all 3 of those cases that you mentioned, the text there is not attempting to create a general rule. They are all attempting to refer back to a general rule for spellcasting that doesn't exist.
Then point out a rule this interpretation conflicts with… Because I’ve certainly pointed out more than one rule your interpretation is inconsistent with. Ignoring the contradictions is not a good argument.
Wow, this really is the oddest thing that keeps on happening in this thread over and over again. Immediately after a full explanation for something is given, the exact question about that topic is then asked. It's actually mind-blowing.
In my extremely recent Post #271, there were 4 core rules quoted, explained and discussed which conflict with your interpretation of the targeting rules:
"that's 4 core rules related to categories of targeting, range restrictions and definitions, and the clear path targeting rule that all function incorrectly under your interpretation. All 4 of these rules are not corner cases -- they are core concepts for successfully casting a spell in 5e."
So you really honestly think this rule is important to war caster? A feat that requires opportunity to be provoked, which itself can't be done if they have total cover? Really? Honestly?? Ok... But, but don't tell anyone this secret... You can't attack someone... If they're behind a wall... Even if they're within 5 feet... Even with Booming Blade... Are we done now?
Ok, so just in general without mentioning anyone in particular I'll just remind the group that throwing a tantrum is not generally helpful to the thread.
As for the answer to this question, of course the Clear Path rule is important. It is an absolutely essential, critically core concept to the entire system of how spellcasting and spell targeting functions in 5e. It underscores what is actually happening when you target your spell. It reconfirms the concept that by casting the spell, it travels from the source of the spellcasting to the target of the spell in an attempt to affect the target of the spell with the spell's magic by creating a spell effect on the target of the spell.
All of the fundamentally important rules for spellcasting are meant to work together. The target of the spell must be within range. There must be a clear path to the target. If the process of targeting the spell creates an AoE, then creatures within the AoE are affected as indicated by the description of the spell effect and in accordance with the rules for Areas of Effect -- and the effects of the spell are not limited by the spell's range once the spell has been cast. The only way in which all of this is possible is if the target of an AoE spell is the point of origin for the Area of Effect.
Oh, and there's an actual rule that exists which lists the origin point as being the valid target for an Area of Effect . . . and there is no general rule in existence which classifies the creatures who are affected by an AoE as a spell target.
So, yeah, I would say that this is pretty important in determining the potential interaction between the Booming Blade spell and the War Caster Feat. The issue at hand is quite obviously not how Opportunity Attacks work. It's about whether or not a creature that is affected by an AoE can be considered to be a spell target with any sort of validity without breaking a whole bunch of core rules of the game because the way in which targeting actually works has serious mechanical significance throughout the game and can cause ripple effects as far reaching as informing the DM on how to make a decision about whether or not Booming Blade works with War Caster.
So, yeah, I hope we're done, but somehow I doubt it.
They exist... You just don't accept them. They don't count! And cherry picking makes you right!
I have no idea what this is going on about unfortunately except I'll just correct the falsehood from the last statement. I am not the one who has been cherry picking all throughout this thread. I have quoted and explained the rules and have explained how they all work together to create a system of spellcasting in 5e.
If you are in the area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself.
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...
Each creature in a 20-foot radius must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
You alter time around up to six creatures of your choice in a 40-foot cube within range. Each target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be affected by this spell for the duration.
So if you want to pretend these don't say what they say, fine... but don't call it RAW... That's not RAW. Maybe you could argue RAI, but Sage Advice would also have to be valid for RAI... But don't call it RAW.
As already explained several times now, all 4 of these bits of text are examples which do not create their own general rule for spellcasting. In all 4 of these cases, the text is attempting to refer back to a general rule for spellcasting that doesn't exist. They are not consistent with the general rules for spellcasting which actually do exist, which specifies that you target "a point of origin for an Area of Effect".
Nothing has been ignored. I've acknowledged these bits of text every step of the way. They all exist in the game and they all say what they say. They are all erroneous in what they say because they are inconsistent with what the general rules actually do say about the topic.
Whenever there is a conflict or an inconsistency in the rules of the game, it is up to the DM to use all of the information available to him in order to make the best possible ruling. The best possible ruling is very clear in this case, it's not even a question.
1. What rule can you cite which says with self (XYZ), the (XYZ) portion must be an area for an AoE?
There are a couple of things here. First, we have this:
A spell's description specifies its area of effect
The content within the parentheses of the Range parameter is part of the spell description, and it's where the spell's area of effect is specified, along with a corresponding specification that always exists in the text for the spell effect. The formatting for how the content of the rules is presented has absolutely no bearing on what the rules actually are. At least not in this case. It doesn't matter at all what the heading of a parameter is labeled as -- it only matters what content actually exists within that parameter. Words like "radius" or "cone" or "line" are key indicators that the content contains the information about an AoE for the spell.
We also have the fact that there are exactly three choices for what we can target in the game, as dictated by the spell description, making that notation an AoE notation by default:
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
We also have the rule for this type of range entry here:
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, these are always AoE spells.
We also have the most important evidence -- it's obvious just from reading it.
For example, I could ask you to provide me with a mathematical proof that proves that the sky is blue. Or I could just walk outside and take a look up at the sky.
2. What effect is written in the spell description of Booming Blade which specifies an AoE. And saying "The Effect that exists within the Area of Effect is the magical effect that fills up the sphere..." isn't gonna cut it. You actual need to cite something written in the spell effect.
This one was answered recently, but I guess that's the trend in this thread. Just ask the same question again which was recently answered.
There doesn't have to be any effect written in the spell description that specifies an AoE. The spell description itself specifies the AoE for a spell:
A spell's description specifies its area of effect
In the case of Booming Blade, it's specified in two places:
Range: self (5-foot-radius)
and
within 5 feet of you.
This creates a sphere with a radius of 5 feet centered around the spellcaster which is capable of affecting a creature that is located within this area if certain conditions are met. No additional flavor text is required.
I previously provided this information the last couple of times that this was asked:
"The AoE for Booming Blade is fully defined by the description which says that it can affect "one creature within 5 feet of you." An exact size and shape and location are all provided by this text. In addition, this works alongside the other important information in the spell description which specifies that this spell follows this parameter: "Range: self (5-foot-radius)". This means that the spell effect is explicitly talking about the possibility of affecting a creature that is located outside the range of the spell. We know from the general rules for spellcasting that there are exactly 3 categories of spell targets in the game that are valid. Because the affected creature can be located outside of the range of the spell, then even just by process of elimination this means that the target MUST be an AoE, since that is the only scenario which remains consistent with the general rules for spellcasting. But of course, besides the fact that it must be so, the text explicitly provides an exact size, shape and location for the AoE. I'm sorry that you don't like the wording of the flavor-text or the lack thereof, so we don't get a pretty mental picture of some sort of magically glowing sphere in space with this spell -- none of that is a requirement. All that we need is the size and shape and location of the AoE that is created by the spell, and we have that."
and also this information:
"The booming energy is what lingers on the affected creature after it has already been affected by the Area of Effect. The Effect that exists within the Area of Effect is the magical effect that fills up the sphere (created by the casting of the spell) that has the power to affect any one creature within it that is successfully attacked and hit by a particular weapon in the manner described. This magical effect and the impact from this weapon interact in such a way that they cause the creature who was hit to become sheathed in booming energy for a short while."
Hopefully I'll remember where I posted all of this information for the next time that the same question gets asked again in the future since this is all useful information for future readers.
There doesn't have to be any effect written in the spell description that specifies an AoE. The spell description itself specifies the AoE for a spell:
With the argument I made in post 246, you said I was wrong. And now you're saying this.
Obviously this isn't going anywhere. You can't even remember what I said previously. Now you're an Area of Effect doesn't need an Effect for the Area? Absurdity. I'll leave it at that.
Ok, I actually may have misunderstood what you were asking there. It looked like you were looking for some sort of flavor text that describes what the effect looks like that has filled up the area. That's the part that is not required. To an outside observer, maybe there is something obvious, such as an explosion. Or maybe not. The effect that has filled the area doesn't have to be perceptible at all. It can still affect a creature who happens to be located within the Area. The only requirement is that the spell description specifies the AoE, which just means that we have to be given a size and a shape and a location.
1. The information about an Area of Effect is always found in the text for the spell effect (See above).
2. Booming Blade does not have an Area of Effect found in its spell effect.
3. Therefore Booming Blade does not have an AoE.
. . .
Point #2 was the point that was incorrect. The text for the spell in question specifies that the affected creature can be anywhere "within 5 feet of you", which is explicitly not the range of the spell (which is "self"). The rule to establish an AoE spell is this:
A spell's description specifies its area of effect,
Therefore, the spell in question must be an AoE spell. All of the specifications are met. We have the hard-coded size. We have the shape. We have the location. There is nothing else that we are required to have as per the rules for Areas of Effect. In this particular case, we also have a notation that describes the AoE within the parameters for the spell, but that's not required to be there.
I certainly don't need to do any such thing. I am not the one that is confused about the rules. You are the one that is constantly asking questions and making incorrect statements after receiving the correct answers over and over again. I am providing answers for you to help you learn. If you are no longer interested in learning about Rules and Mechanics for the game, maybe stop asking questions in the Rules and Mechanics Forum, that's up to you. But if you are still interested in learning something then you should probably work on your tone.
As such, I've decided that the best way for this conversation to move forward is by responding to some answers that are given to my Socratic questions that I posed back on Post #229. I await your answers.
Okay. Sage Advice (official, not the tweets) offers some guidance in a way one might not expect.
Twinned Spell targeting notes
Specifically the following condition that disqualifies a spell from being Twinned:
Now, considering the only two requirements to be able to use Twinned Spell are that it can't target Self and can't target multiple creatures at its current level, we have an official ruling listing any creature within an AoE as a target of a spell. That settles the entire question.
It doesn't and they are not, and nobody has made such a claim.
Range has nothing to do with the AoE of a spell except that the point of origin must be within range since that's the target of an AoE spell. How the AoE itself is specified has nothing at all to do with the range.
No, it doesn't.
No, it doesn't say that either.
That's also incorrect.
No. The range of a spell is an important, mechanically significant property of every single spell in the game. There is a whole section within the general rules for spellcasting dedicated to defining and explaining this term. The range of a spell is the maximum distance between the source of the spell and the target of a spell.
First of all, no targets are ever affected by the effect that is created within the AoE because the target of the spell is the point of origin for the Area.
Even if you are actually talking about the number of affected creatures -- there is absolutely no rule whatsoever about any minimum number of creatures that must be affected in order for something to qualify as an AoE spell. That is completely false and totally fabricated. There can be AoE spells that don't affect creatures at all. Or, some other ones might affect lots of creatures. That has absolutely nothing at all to do with what makes something an AoE.
Just to pick a quick and easy example, the spell Create or Destroy Water is an AoE spell that doesn't mention anything about affecting any creatures.
What are you talking about? First of all, Sage Advice is not RAW. Second, there is absolutely nothing that you are pointing to here that says or even remotely implies that "any creature within an AoE is a target of a spell". How in the world did you come to that conclusion? That note about saving throws doesn't even have anything to do with AoE spells at all. In fact, this entire Sage Advice answer regarding Twinned Spell is very carefully written to never use the word "Target" incorrectly. In fact, the entirety of the Sage Advice Compendium uses the word "Target" 83 times and it's only used incorrectly 1 time (in the discussion about the antipathy/sympathy spell).
First off, no amount of denying things can make you right. The game's design (by the words of the designers) has been shown repeatedly throughout the thread.
Second, Sage Advice Compendium rulings are considered official/RAW. If it's in the Sage Advice Compendium, it has the same level of power as errata. (The same doesn't apply to dev tweets.)
Third, I was demonstrating that, despite it not explicitly saying "target" in that line, it still disqualifies the spell for Twinned Spell. And the only possible reason for that would be that it can target multiple creatures, because it's obvious that it's not because the spell has a range of Self for those instances. Ergo, each creature within is considered a target by the rules that govern targeting creatures with spells, such as Twinned Spell.
No... you clearly are. You can't even reconcile your position with the general rules explicitly stated in the PHB, let alone all the specific rules in the spell descriptions. When your interpretation can't reconcile general rules (like self targeting), you're probably mistaken. It's honestly baffling you won't even consider you've misunderstood after every rule you've waved.
It's not like your question hasn't been answered... The general rule for an AoE is that it targets the point of origin... but it also can target affected creatures in the AoE. With the affected creatures, their targeting doesn't have to be in range because the the primary target is the point of origin (which is within range) and creatures within can be targeted for the AoE, which is automatic (as in fireball) or select target (as in slow) depending on the spell.
For Self (XYZ) AoE spells, the point of origin doesn't necessarily need to be targeted because it's always the caster per the rules, and that section does not require the point of origin to be targeted. For a spell like burning hands, you pick a direction and target the creatures within the AoE.
These are consistent with the general rules of the game, unless you can point out a rule they explicitly violate... Although if we're playing fair, I ought to be able to dismiss conflicting rules just as you do... but I won't, so feel free to pick this apart.
No, they are not RAW because they aren't rules. The Sage Advice Compendium compiles official rulings and interpretations and provide some intended meanings for some rules. None of those are the actual words that are written in the Rule Books. This is the Rules and Mechanics Forum.
I have denied nothing. I have directly quoted the actual rules that exist in the Rule Books, and I have explained their meaning. I have answered questions about the topic and I have corrected people when they are wrong. None of that should have a negative connotation -- it's a useful service to the community and people can either learn something from it or not.
This is all totally false, and your conclusion doesn't even follow at all from your premise.
The reason why that Sage Advice answer doesn't explicitly refer to affected creatures as targets is because creatures affected by an AoE are not targets of the spell. The entire Sage Advice Compendium is extremely carefully written in a manner that intentionally avoids making that mistake. And why do you think that any of that even has anything to do with AoE spells? Just because a spell forces more than one creature to make a saving throw doesn't mean that it's an AoE spell. There are tons and tons of spells in the game which directly target creatures without ever creating an AoE. A common example of such a spell is Magic Missile. Any spell that works like Magic Missile but requires the target creatures to make a saving throw would fall under this portion of the Sage Advice that you are quoting. Again, nothing at all to do with AoE spells. All AoE spells are automatically disqualified from working with Twinned Spell because AoE spells do not target creatures, they target the point of origin for an Area of Effect.
Whatever you thought that you were "demonstrating" is totally ineffective.
Totally false. My position reconciles perfectly with the general rules for spellcasting except for the one line that's related to Self-Targeting, which is poorly written. It is either talking about the cases where the spellcaster is a point of origin for the AoE, or they meant "affect" but mistakenly said "target". It would be a mistake because it would be clarifying a corner case in a manner that is not consistent with the regular cases. That's just obvious, but if you want to throw your hands up and cry foul at that explanation, then go for it. Nobody is stopping you from playing the game however you want. I am 100% correct about how this system works. Meanwhile, your interpretation completely conflicts with several of the core rules and you've flatly refused to attempt to reconcile those problems with your interpretation that I asked about on that topic twice already.
Literally none of this is in the rules. You've just made all of this up out of thin air. Not only is none of this in the rules, but it directly conflicts with several of the general rules for spellcasting.
Show me where the rules say that the target of a spell can be outside of the range. I'll show you an actual rule:
Show me the general rule for spellcasting that says that a spell can target affected creatures in the AoE. I'll show you two actual rules:
All of this is completely made up. There are absolutely no rules whatsoever that say anything like this. See the above two quoted rules for what the rules actually say on this matter.
No, your interpretation of targeting absolutely is not consistent with the general rules for spellcasting. If you had taken a moment to read my Post #229 above and responded to the questions that I posed to the group there, you would already know this:
In addition to the 3 rules that were just quoted above, there is also:
You might not have a clear path to some of the affected creatures within an AoE so they cannot be valid spell targets. But they should still be valid affected creatures of an AoE according to the rules for Areas of Effect. Your interpretation will not function correctly in these situations.
So, that's 4 core rules related to categories of targeting, range restrictions and definitions, and the clear path targeting rule that all function incorrectly under your interpretation. All 4 of these rules are not corner cases -- they are core concepts for successfully casting a spell in 5e.
I've told you exactly how spellcasting actually works in 5e a huge number of times now. It's up to you if you want to keep your head in the sand.
Right... you can never be wrong if all conflicting information is... wrong by default.
Literally none? I think you should be more careful because even you agree AoEs generally target the point of origin.
Sure. The Targets in Areas of Effect table from the DMG specify that creatures affected an AoE are considered targets of the AoE. PHB says:
This tells us the effects of spells aren't limited by the range, so you can potentially affect creatures outside range with the AoE spell. Since these affected creatures are considered targets, the creatures targeted by the AoE are out of range of the spell. This is a similar situation to Chain Lightning targeting creatures outside of range. It's not a problem because the primary target (the point of origin) is within range, thus properly limiting spell.
I gave a general rule which states you can target creatures in an AoE, but there are also plenty of spell descriptions that say you can as well. You're already familiar with some of them... You just dismiss them, thus making yourself right by default. But I've reconciled them.
Mhmmmm...
I did respond to your questions... "So, the question is . . . can you explain this?" The answer is yes, all those spell descriptions are consistent with my explanation. "Judging only from the above text . . . what does it look like the general rule probably is?" I explained what the general rule is.
Do you honestly think what I explained is inconsistent with 'clear path to target' rules? That rule is not being challenged on either side. It's not really relevant to this topic.
So let me get this straight... You challenge us to explain how AoE spells work given all the descriptions you listed... specifically challenging the interpretation that AoE spells can target creatures within... Then you say "I already explained this" when someone takes up the challenge? Why did you even bring it up if you didn't want to hear disagreement?
So, you wouldn't classify aura of vitality as an AoE? That seems... dubious
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)
Emanations don't exist as a rules concept in 5e, sadly
aura of vitality is a 30-ft sphere centered on you
If you're going to argue that it's only an AoE if the description contains one of those specific words, then you're going to have to explain the functional difference between antimagic field (which says "sphere") and globe of invulnerability (which doesn't, despite its name), or why arms of hadar isn't an AoE even though it literally says it affects "each creature in that area"
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)
Seriously? The word "emanation" doesn't appear once in the 5e PHB or DMG. You were saying something about "information not presented in the rules"?
As for the targeting stuff, again, you seem to have me confused with someone else
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)
My position in this thread from the beginning has been that booming blade is so sloppily worded, and that the definitions of terms like "target" are so imprecise, that multiple interpretations of its interaction with War Caster are defensible and that there is no clear RAW interpretation
To pick another example that came up earlier, I disagree with you that fireball should be a valid option for War Caster if it happens to only hit one person, but I certainly see how you got there
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 I had asked for a citation of a general rule for spellcasting that specifies that creatures that are affected by an AoE are targets of the spell.
As already explained a few times now, the DMG table is not a general rule for spellcasting about targeting. This section of the DMG is dedicated to making suggestions to the DM for how to handle AoE spells when they are running a game that uses the Theatre of Mind style of gameplay, since that is not the default style that is handled by the rules. This text attempts to refer back to a general rule for spellcasting, but that rule doesn't exist. The actual rule says something else that is inconsistent with how this text is using the term.
You absolutely did not provide any such general rule since that general rule does not exist. If you refer back to my Post #229 which you keep avoiding, you will see how the spells in this game are generally written which conform to the actual rules of the game and how rare the exceptions are which erroneously attempt to refer back to a general rule that does not exist. You can continue to ignore it, but it's all right there in that Post clear as day.
You have reconciled nothing. In order to reconcile an erroneous spell description with a general rule that it is attempting to refer back to, that general rule has to actually exist.
What point do you think you are making by highlighting these particular words? Hopefully you do know what that "also" in that statement actually refers to, right? You are making my point for me by highlighting this rule:
The target of an AoE spell is the point of origin. When the spell has a range of self and indicates an effect that comes from the spellcaster, then the point of origin for that Area is you. Therefore, you are the target of that spell. Simple stuff.
Is that really your answer? Well, that is a nonsensical answer. I had asked for the answers to be given in a sensible manner so that they could provide some value to the discussion. In fact, only 2 out of the 26 AoE damage spells are consistent with your explanation of the general rules, and both of those 2 spells are attempting to refer back to a general rule that doesn't exist.
If you are looking through all of the spell descriptions given and you are judging your answer only based on that text . . . and you've somehow come up with your interpretation for the general rules for spellcasting, then some extraordinarily obvious pattern recognition is being missed. If it's not possible for you to address what the text in the game actually says in sensible manner, then it's time to take a second look at your interpretation and perhaps actually begin listening to the other forum posters who have been attempting to share the correct information about the game with you.
This is absolutely critical and central to this topic since we are discussing how targeting works in the game so that we can get on the same page about the question in the OP about how a specific spell works with the War Caster Feat.
And I'll just generally point out here that you've just asked a question where the answer to that question was given literally 4 lines of text above where you've posted your question. This has happened quite a bit in this thread. Asking the same questions over and over again right after it's just been answered bloats and derails the thread.
Since you've asked again, I'll explain it again:
You might not have a clear path to some of the affected creatures within an AoE so they cannot be valid spell targets. But they should still be valid affected creatures of an AoE according to the rules for Areas of Effect. Your interpretation will not function correctly in these situations.
When you disagree with someone who has already provided the correct answer, the best thing to do is to quote an actual rule that supports your claim. In this case, such a rule does not exist. The spellcasting system for this game was designed a certain way, it is written a certain way and it works a certain way. The spells are generally written a certain way to conform with the general rules. A disagreement needs to have some merit, backed up with some sort of facts -- otherwise, it just doesn't really mean anything.
An area in a 3d space with a defined radius is a sphere, by definition. It does not matter even one iota if the Area of Effect for a spell calls itself a sphere or not. Areas of Effect do not even have to conform to any of the standard shapes -- there's simply a mention that an AoE "typically" exists in one of those standard forms.
There is no such thing as an emanation spell. There are exactly three options for the target of a spell -- directly targeting a creature, directly targeting an object, or targeting a point of origin for an Area of Effect.
Playing on a grid is a variant, not the default style (PHB, p. 192)
Ignore it? You mean… like how you ignore self targeting, the DMG Table, and spell descriptions? Yeah, I’ll ignore your baseless claims all day.
Then point out a rule this interpretation conflicts with… Because I’ve certainly pointed out more than one rule your interpretation is inconsistent with. Ignoring the contradictions is not a good argument.
So you really honestly think this rule is important to war caster? A feat that requires opportunity to be provoked, which itself can't be done if they have total cover? Really? Honestly?? Ok... But, but don't tell anyone this secret... You can't attack someone... If they're behind a wall... Even if they're within 5 feet... Even with Booming Blade... Are we done now?
They exist... You just don't accept them. They don't count! And cherry picking makes you right!
So if you want to pretend these don't say what they say, fine... but don't call it RAW... That's not RAW. Maybe you could argue RAI, but Sage Advice would also have to be valid for RAI... But don't call it RAW.
So anyways, you haven't cited rules for crucial claims you've made. There are two questions.
1. What rule can you cite which says with self (XYZ), the (XYZ) portion must be an area for an AoE?
2. What effect is written in the spell description of Booming Blade which specifies an AoE. And saying "The Effect that exists within the Area of Effect is the magical effect that fills up the sphere..." isn't gonna cut it. You actual need to cite something written in the spell effect.
Ah yes, good catch. I had forgotten about that convention due to how much of the game so heavily relies on rules regarding knowing or tracking how many feet of distance is measured between two locations -- movement rules, jumping rules, equipment range rules, spellcasting range rules and so on, but that's fine.
The point there remains exactly the same. That DMG table is discussing how to deal with AoEs that are created by a spell when playing with a style where distances between things in the world are not being precisely tracked and can't be seen through any sort of visual aid. In the course of explaining a suggested procedure for doing that, the text attempts to refer back to a general rule for spellcasting that doesn't exist.
What do you mean? I have not ignored any of those things. In most cases, I was the first one who brought them up in order to point out the inconsistencies in the rules.
As has already been explained at least a half dozen times now, in all 3 of those cases that you mentioned, the text there is not attempting to create a general rule. They are all attempting to refer back to a general rule for spellcasting that doesn't exist.
Wow, this really is the oddest thing that keeps on happening in this thread over and over again. Immediately after a full explanation for something is given, the exact question about that topic is then asked. It's actually mind-blowing.
In my extremely recent Post #271, there were 4 core rules quoted, explained and discussed which conflict with your interpretation of the targeting rules:
"that's 4 core rules related to categories of targeting, range restrictions and definitions, and the clear path targeting rule that all function incorrectly under your interpretation. All 4 of these rules are not corner cases -- they are core concepts for successfully casting a spell in 5e."
Ok, so just in general without mentioning anyone in particular I'll just remind the group that throwing a tantrum is not generally helpful to the thread.
As for the answer to this question, of course the Clear Path rule is important. It is an absolutely essential, critically core concept to the entire system of how spellcasting and spell targeting functions in 5e. It underscores what is actually happening when you target your spell. It reconfirms the concept that by casting the spell, it travels from the source of the spellcasting to the target of the spell in an attempt to affect the target of the spell with the spell's magic by creating a spell effect on the target of the spell.
All of the fundamentally important rules for spellcasting are meant to work together. The target of the spell must be within range. There must be a clear path to the target. If the process of targeting the spell creates an AoE, then creatures within the AoE are affected as indicated by the description of the spell effect and in accordance with the rules for Areas of Effect -- and the effects of the spell are not limited by the spell's range once the spell has been cast. The only way in which all of this is possible is if the target of an AoE spell is the point of origin for the Area of Effect.
Oh, and there's an actual rule that exists which lists the origin point as being the valid target for an Area of Effect . . . and there is no general rule in existence which classifies the creatures who are affected by an AoE as a spell target.
So, yeah, I would say that this is pretty important in determining the potential interaction between the Booming Blade spell and the War Caster Feat. The issue at hand is quite obviously not how Opportunity Attacks work. It's about whether or not a creature that is affected by an AoE can be considered to be a spell target with any sort of validity without breaking a whole bunch of core rules of the game because the way in which targeting actually works has serious mechanical significance throughout the game and can cause ripple effects as far reaching as informing the DM on how to make a decision about whether or not Booming Blade works with War Caster.
So, yeah, I hope we're done, but somehow I doubt it.
I have no idea what this is going on about unfortunately except I'll just correct the falsehood from the last statement. I am not the one who has been cherry picking all throughout this thread. I have quoted and explained the rules and have explained how they all work together to create a system of spellcasting in 5e.
As already explained several times now, all 4 of these bits of text are examples which do not create their own general rule for spellcasting. In all 4 of these cases, the text is attempting to refer back to a general rule for spellcasting that doesn't exist. They are not consistent with the general rules for spellcasting which actually do exist, which specifies that you target "a point of origin for an Area of Effect".
Nothing has been ignored. I've acknowledged these bits of text every step of the way. They all exist in the game and they all say what they say. They are all erroneous in what they say because they are inconsistent with what the general rules actually do say about the topic.
Whenever there is a conflict or an inconsistency in the rules of the game, it is up to the DM to use all of the information available to him in order to make the best possible ruling. The best possible ruling is very clear in this case, it's not even a question.
There are a couple of things here. First, we have this:
The content within the parentheses of the Range parameter is part of the spell description, and it's where the spell's area of effect is specified, along with a corresponding specification that always exists in the text for the spell effect. The formatting for how the content of the rules is presented has absolutely no bearing on what the rules actually are. At least not in this case. It doesn't matter at all what the heading of a parameter is labeled as -- it only matters what content actually exists within that parameter. Words like "radius" or "cone" or "line" are key indicators that the content contains the information about an AoE for the spell.
We also have the fact that there are exactly three choices for what we can target in the game, as dictated by the spell description, making that notation an AoE notation by default:
We also have the rule for this type of range entry here:
So, these are always AoE spells.
We also have the most important evidence -- it's obvious just from reading it.
For example, I could ask you to provide me with a mathematical proof that proves that the sky is blue. Or I could just walk outside and take a look up at the sky.
This one was answered recently, but I guess that's the trend in this thread. Just ask the same question again which was recently answered.
There doesn't have to be any effect written in the spell description that specifies an AoE. The spell description itself specifies the AoE for a spell:
In the case of Booming Blade, it's specified in two places:
and
This creates a sphere with a radius of 5 feet centered around the spellcaster which is capable of affecting a creature that is located within this area if certain conditions are met. No additional flavor text is required.
I previously provided this information the last couple of times that this was asked:
"The AoE for Booming Blade is fully defined by the description which says that it can affect "one creature within 5 feet of you." An exact size and shape and location are all provided by this text. In addition, this works alongside the other important information in the spell description which specifies that this spell follows this parameter: "Range: self (5-foot-radius)". This means that the spell effect is explicitly talking about the possibility of affecting a creature that is located outside the range of the spell. We know from the general rules for spellcasting that there are exactly 3 categories of spell targets in the game that are valid. Because the affected creature can be located outside of the range of the spell, then even just by process of elimination this means that the target MUST be an AoE, since that is the only scenario which remains consistent with the general rules for spellcasting. But of course, besides the fact that it must be so, the text explicitly provides an exact size, shape and location for the AoE. I'm sorry that you don't like the wording of the flavor-text or the lack thereof, so we don't get a pretty mental picture of some sort of magically glowing sphere in space with this spell -- none of that is a requirement. All that we need is the size and shape and location of the AoE that is created by the spell, and we have that."
and also this information:
"The booming energy is what lingers on the affected creature after it has already been affected by the Area of Effect. The Effect that exists within the Area of Effect is the magical effect that fills up the sphere (created by the casting of the spell) that has the power to affect any one creature within it that is successfully attacked and hit by a particular weapon in the manner described. This magical effect and the impact from this weapon interact in such a way that they cause the creature who was hit to become sheathed in booming energy for a short while."
Hopefully I'll remember where I posted all of this information for the next time that the same question gets asked again in the future since this is all useful information for future readers.
With the argument I made in post 246, you said I was wrong. And now you're saying this.
Obviously this isn't going anywhere. You can't even remember what I said previously. Now you're an Area of Effect doesn't need an Effect for the Area? Absurdity. I'll leave it at that.
Ok, I actually may have misunderstood what you were asking there. It looked like you were looking for some sort of flavor text that describes what the effect looks like that has filled up the area. That's the part that is not required. To an outside observer, maybe there is something obvious, such as an explosion. Or maybe not. The effect that has filled the area doesn't have to be perceptible at all. It can still affect a creature who happens to be located within the Area. The only requirement is that the spell description specifies the AoE, which just means that we have to be given a size and a shape and a location.
For reference, this was Post #246:
Point #2 was the point that was incorrect. The text for the spell in question specifies that the affected creature can be anywhere "within 5 feet of you", which is explicitly not the range of the spell (which is "self"). The rule to establish an AoE spell is this:
Therefore, the spell in question must be an AoE spell. All of the specifications are met. We have the hard-coded size. We have the shape. We have the location. There is nothing else that we are required to have as per the rules for Areas of Effect. In this particular case, we also have a notation that describes the AoE within the parameters for the spell, but that's not required to be there.
I don't see the irony. The rules are what they are, but you should feel free to run your games however you wish.