You cannot limit the height of this spell, or you wouldn't be able to change the clouds, wind, or temperature above 5 miles, which is necessary to produce rain or snow, for example. Using a sphere limits not only the height in your current position but also the height along the radius of that sphere.
DnD 5e spells are an evolution of spells from AD&D or DnD 3.5. If you check them, it's clear that the spell defines a circle (using the radius), but does not limit the effect in terms of height. Basically, you're controlling a local area.
For example, for DnD 3.5, we had this:
Range: 2-miles
Area: 2-mile-radius circle, centered on you; see text
Description: You change the weather in the local area.
You cannot limit the height of this spell, or you wouldn't be able to change the clouds, wind, or temperature above 5 miles, which is necessary to produce rain or snow, for example. Using a sphere limits not only the height in your current position but also the height along the radius of that sphere.
What the spell was listed as in prior editions has no bearing on the 5e version, sorry
As for the quoted part, fireball can damage things beyond its listed range. So yes, if you insist that magical changes to weather within 5 miles of you must affect wider weather patterns -- which I don't -- you can absolutely still limit the height of the spell
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If you're saying the spell does what it says, and clear is one of the options, then it has to be able to make the sky clear. That means you cannot have a ceiling on the effect, otherwise the spell wouldn't do what it says.
1) Y'all are applying Earth physics to worlds that are very much not Earth
2) You're within 5 miles of the caster, and you look up and see a clear sky. That doesn't mean if you fly up 6 miles, it's still clear
I mean, they knew what cylinders were when they wrote the rules for the spell. They elected not to define the area of effect that way. RAW, it's a sphere with a 5-mile radius. How you reconcile that with how you think weather and magic should interact is up to you
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I mean, they knew what spheres were too, and didn't elect to call the area one. Again, only 2 self (x radius) spells use that word.
When you say something has a radius in three-dimensional space and don't give any other dimensions, you're defining a sphere, whether you explicitly use that word or not. globe of invulnerability doesn't use the word "sphere" either
If the caster weren't on the ground and were hovering in the air instead, on an airship or whatever, how would you judge the area affected by control weather?
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You cannot limit the height of this spell, or you wouldn't be able to change the clouds, wind, or temperature above 5 miles, which is necessary to produce rain or snow, for example. Using a sphere limits not only the height in your current position but also the height along the radius of that sphere.
What the spell was listed as in prior editions has no bearing on the 5e version, sorry
As for the quoted part, fireball can damage things beyond its listed range. So yes, if you insist that magical changes to weather within 5 miles of you must affect wider weather patterns -- which I don't -- you can absolutely still limit the height of the spell
Regarding previous D&D versions, I know, but I mentioned that because the spell entry is an evolution, and the intent is the same as those spells in 2e and 3e, as I said.
Control Weather is not a sphere, just an area. The word 'sphere' is not present in the spell entry. We cannot assume it is a sphere just by reading the Range parameter and the phrase 'within 5 feet of you,' as up2ng incorrectly suggests.
The following situation doesn't make sense to me (h = 5 miles, R = 5 miles):
Except for the gray shaded portion of that picture which doesn't actually exist with this spell, the general idea depicted by that diagram is exactly what happens with that spell. The surrounding area can have totally different weather conditions than exists within the area -- that's the whole point of the spell.
Control Weather is not a sphere, just an area. The word 'sphere' is not present in the spell entry. We cannot assume it is a sphere just by reading the Range parameter and the phrase 'within 5 feet of you,' as up2ng incorrectly suggests.
Areas of Effect don't work like that in 5e. The "Area" is always a 3d space. There would have to be some incredibly specific language that overrides this such as what you see in certain portions of the Symbol spell where it's talking about the procedures for setting up a glyph that affects a surface. Even in that spell, the end result winds up just being a normal spherical AoE. (That spell also happens to be a good example of actually creating a Specific vs General exception to AoE targeting rules --> "Each creature in the sphere when the glyph activates is targeted by its effect, as is a creature that enters the sphere for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there").
You cannot limit the height of this spell, or you wouldn't be able to change the clouds, wind, or temperature above 5 miles, which is necessary to produce rain or snow, for example. Using a sphere limits not only the height in your current position but also the height along the radius of that sphere.
What the spell was listed as in prior editions has no bearing on the 5e version, sorry
As for the quoted part, fireball can damage things beyond its listed range. So yes, if you insist that magical changes to weather within 5 miles of you must affect wider weather patterns -- which I don't -- you can absolutely still limit the height of the spell
Regarding previous D&D versions, I know, but I mentioned that because the spell entry is an evolution, and the intent is the same as those spells in 2e and 3e, as I said.
Control Weather is not a sphere, just an area. The word 'sphere' is not present in the spell entry. We cannot assume it is a sphere just by reading the Range parameter and the phrase 'within 5 feet of you,' as up2ng incorrectly suggests.
The following situation doesn't make sense to me (h = 5 miles, R = 5 miles):
It's an 8th-level spell. It should be doing things that bend the usual rules of reality
EDIT: But again, if you don't like that answer, then just view it like fireball. You change the weather within the listed area of effect, and that can spill outside of the listed area, just as the damage from a fireball can spill outside its listed range
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)
Control Weather is not a sphere, just an area. The word 'sphere' is not present in the spell entry. We cannot assume it is a sphere just by reading the Range parameter and the phrase 'within 5 feet of you,' as up2ng incorrectly suggests.
Areas of Effect don't work like that in 5e. The "Area" is always a 3d space. There would have to be some incredibly specific language that overrides this such as what you see in certain portions of the Symbol spell where it's talking about the procedures for setting up a glyph that affects a surface. Even in that spell, the end result winds up just being a normal spherical AoE. (That spell also happens to be a good example of actually creating a Specific vs General exception to AoE targeting rules --> "Each creature in the sphere when the glyph activates is targeted by its effect, as is a creature that enters the sphere for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there").
Symbol: "Once triggered, the glyph glows, filling a 60-foot-radius sphere with dim light for 10 minutes"
The word "sphere" is not present in Control Weather. Spells do only what they say they do.
By the way, regarding the Symbol spell, the terms "creature" and "target" are used interchangeably.
You cannot limit the height of this spell, or you wouldn't be able to change the clouds, wind, or temperature above 5 miles, which is necessary to produce rain or snow, for example. Using a sphere limits not only the height in your current position but also the height along the radius of that sphere.
What the spell was listed as in prior editions has no bearing on the 5e version, sorry
As for the quoted part, fireball can damage things beyond its listed range. So yes, if you insist that magical changes to weather within 5 miles of you must affect wider weather patterns -- which I don't -- you can absolutely still limit the height of the spell
Regarding previous D&D versions, I know, but I mentioned that because the spell entry is an evolution, and the intent is the same as those spells in 2e and 3e, as I said.
Control Weather is not a sphere, just an area. The word 'sphere' is not present in the spell entry. We cannot assume it is a sphere just by reading the Range parameter and the phrase 'within 5 feet of you,' as up2ng incorrectly suggests.
The following situation doesn't make sense to me (h = 5 miles, R = 5 miles):
It's an 8th-level spell. It should be doing things that bend the usual rules of reality
EDIT: But again, if you don't like that answer, then just view it like fireball. You change the weather within the listed area of effect, and that can spill outside of the listed area, just as the damage from a fireball can spill outside its listed range
It's not that I don't like your answer, it's just that I don't see how this spell can be contained in a sphere, because that's not the intent when we read the spell entry.
Anyway, I prefer not to continue this discussion. To me, Booming Blade is not an AoE spell. The range "Self (5-foot radius)" and the phrase "within 5 feet of you" are not enough to assume the spell creates a sphere. We need to read the entire spell description to determine the shape of the AoE (if any)
I think I’ve given ample opportunity for you to clarify, so I’ll criticize it as is.
So my understanding of your explanation of the mechanics of Booming Blade is that it creates an AoE, that does nothing… but then has a trigger of acting upon a target that is hit by the melee attack. You agree none of this is actually written in the spell description. The effect of the Area of Effect is not specified by the spell, but this isn’t a problem because a size and shape is specified and that’s good enough. The size and shape are specified by the ‘within 5 feet’ language in the spell, as well as the (5-foot radius) in the range block.
Ok, so problems with this… first, I do think the effect for the AoE must be specified. If it is not, the AoE is not properly specified and thus the spell does not have an AoE. This biggest problem is that the ‘within 5 feet’ is specified as the distance you can make the melee attack for the Booming Blade spell. You and I agree that this melee attack is not an effect of the spell, let alone its AoE. That means this specified range, or distance, is not forthe AoE. You can’t just say ‘those are the magic words’ and ignore the context of what it’s actually specifying. As was said before, D&D 5e is meant to be written in plain english, not legalize, so magic word arguments that ignore the context aren’t compelling.
For Sword Burst, the AoE is specified. The area is specified by ‘within 5 feet’ is specified as a range from the caster to affect all creatures within, forcing them to make a saving throw or else take damage. Since the size, shape, and effect for the AoE are specified, this spell is properly specified. For Booming blade, the size and shape are not specified because the ‘within 5 feet’ is specified for a melee attack, not a spell effect. There is also no spell effect specified to affect an area, and I don’t think making one up is a good way to fix this. How should we interpret it instead?
The spell has you brandish a weapon and make a melee attack with it as part of the spellcasting, but not as a spell effect. The target of the melee attack becomes the target of the spell, and a hit enables the effects of the spell to affect this target. This interpretation is consistent with the rules of the game. “But you can’t target something out of range.” Well… 5-foot radius is part of the range. I know you said “radius” must always refer to an AoE, but this is again… a magic word argument; not an actual rule. Since there is no AoE without a specified effect, it can’t be for an AoE since there is no AoE. Second, spells like Chain Lightning can and do target creatures outside of range. Since the target is the attack target, which is ‘within 5 feet,’ it clearly can be targeted even if we assume it’s outside of range.
So hopefully I represented you accurately, but if I didn’t just know… I tried to give you opportunity to explain yourself.
For relevant rules we have the folling:
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic.
This explains that the target is meant to be affected, and since no AoE is specified, the point of origin doesn't qualify as a target for Booming Blade. The point of origin is where the spell originates, but it doesn't need to be a target as explained 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.
This is also relevant:
A spell’s description specifies its area of effect...
So if the effect is not specified for the AoE in your interpretation of Booming Blade, so there is no specified AoE. An area isn't good enough, it needs to be specified for a magical effect for that area.
Symbol: "Once triggered, the glyph glows, filling a 60-foot-radius sphere with dim light for 10 minutes"
The word "sphere" is not present in Control Weather. Spells do only what they say they do.
By the way, regarding the Symbol spell, the terms "creature" and "target" are used interchangeably.
It looks like you may have completely missed the two points that were made with regard to the Symbol spell. For convenience I'll repost that here:
"Areas of Effect [ are not 2d effects ] in 5e. The "Area" is always a 3d space. There would have to be some incredibly specific language that overrides this such as what you see in certain portions of the Symbol spell where it's talking about the procedures for setting up a glyph that affects a surface. Even in that spell, the end result winds up just being a normal spherical AoE. (That spell also happens to be a good example of actually creating a Specific vs General exception to AoE targeting rules --> "Each creature in the sphere when the glyph activates is targeted by its effect, as is a creature that enters the sphere for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there").
The word "sphere" does not have to appear anywhere in an AoE spell that creates a spherical AoE. That simply is not a requirement for the sphere existing. You only have to have the specifications for the area that is created -- the size and shape and location. "Within 5 feet of you" checks all three of those boxes very elegantly.
It's not that Symbol uses "creature" and "target" interchangeably. That's not what is actually happening with that spell, and it completely misses the point that I already made about that spell. Unlike all of the other spells that we've talked about, the Symbol spell actually creates a Specific vs General exception to AoE targeting rules by explaining that the magic that is sitting within the area is not just passively filling up space -- the magic within this area explicitly actively targets creatures. It's as if it's scanning its own area looking for creatures and then physically goes after any creature that it finds. The spell was written this way because by default AoE magic does not do this. The general rules for spellcasting are overridden to create a unique spell that behaves differently than the default behavior. This is completely different than how spells like Fireball are written, which are merely attempting to refer back to a general rule that does not exist. I was pointing out how the Symbol spell is written to help people understand the difference. It's also a good example of how a spell needs to be written if it's specifically trying to affect a 2d space, which is not the default for how AoE spells work either.
To me, Booming Blade is not an AoE spell. The range "Self (5-foot radius)" and the phrase "within 5 feet of you" are not enough to assume the spell creates a sphere. We need to read the entire spell description to determine the shape of the AoE (if any)
This information is exactly what is necessary to determine that the spell creates a sphere -- there is no other mechanism for this spell to function correctly as written. The spell used to target a creature within a range of 5 feet. This was explicitly and deliberately changed via errata to use the AoE mechanism instead.
So my understanding of your explanation of the mechanics of Booming Blade is that it creates an AoE, that does nothing… but then has a trigger of acting upon a target that is hit by the melee attack.
That's more or less correct. Keep in mind that all of this happens somewhat simultaneously. The melee weapon attack occurs right away upon casting the spell as part of the spell's effect in the sense that the casting of the spell causes this attack to happen. In terms of the AoE doing "nothing" -- sure, you could look at it that way . . . instead of providing a typical Saving Throw mechanic to allow a creature to be unaffected by the AoE, the attack roll mechanic is used instead for the same purpose. If the attack is a miss, then the AoE does "nothing".
You agree none of this is actually written in the spell description.
I disagree. The spell's description includes a Range of "self" and a hard-coded 5-foot-radius spherical area, confirmed by the phrase "within 5 feet of you". The spell is requiring the attack target to be located within this Area, and the creature is only affected if it is hit by the attack.
The effect of the Area of Effect is not specified by the spell, but this isn’t a problem because a size and shape is specified and that’s good enough. The size and shape are specified by the ‘within 5 feet’ language in the spell, as well as the (5-foot radius) in the range block.
This is pretty much correct, except that the effect is specified in the ways that you've just mentioned. It's the target of the spell, which results in affecting the Area with the spell's magic by filling the space with this effect. There is no additional flavor text that might describe what this magic looks, sounds, smells, tastes or feels like so it's apparently imperceptible and that's fine. Such flavor text is not a requirement.
Ok, so problems with this… first, I do think the effect for the AoE must be specified. If it is not, the AoE is not properly specified and thus the spell does not have an AoE.
I assume that you are talking about wanting to see some flavor text about how the magic that fills up the space is perceived. This is not a requirement for the existence of an AoE.
This biggest problem is that the ‘within 5 feet’ is specified as the distance you can make the melee attack for the Booming Blade spell. You and I agree that this melee attack is not an effect of the spell, let alone its AoE. That means this specified range, or distance, is not for the AoE.
It may seem like semantics but some of this does have mechanical significance. The melee weapon attack is not a magical effect in and of itself -- it's not described as a "spell attack" so the spell itself is not directly magically targeting a creature with this attack. The affected creature is not magically affected by being struck by a mundane weapon, which is why part of what happens to the affected creature is simply that "the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects". But the attack itself is part of the spell effect in the sense that the casting of the spell causes this attack to happen.
The "within 5 feet of you" is not just a distance. It specifies the Area within which the creature must be located in order to be affected. In that sense it does restrict the possible locations where the melee weapon attack can occur, which comes into play if the spellcaster is wielding a reach weapon. If it weren't for the AoE mechanic, and the attack target was instead considered to be the target of the spell, then this attack wouldn't be able to reach the creature at all because the attack would instead be made "within range" and the range for this spell is "self". Remember, "The target of a spell must be within the spell's range".
For example, the Magic Missile spell has a Range of 120 feet. It's specified that "Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range." This spell simply would never be written as "Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within 150 feet", because such a spell description would break the core general spellcasting rules for how the Range of a spell works in the game. In addition, the spell would also never be written as "Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within 120 feet." The reason is because the range for your spell might change for some reason. You might be afflicted with some sort of curse that cuts the ranges for all of the spells that you cast in half, for example. If that happens, then having the hard-coded number in the spell description would once again cause the casting of that spell to break the core general spellcasting rules for how the Range of a spell works in the game. For that reason, you always see the phrase "within range" when describing the target of a spell instead of a hard-coded number.
Booming Blade used to use the phrase "within range" when the affected creature was considered to be the target of the spell. The designers realized that this was erroneous because the creature was being struck with a mundane weapon instead of a spell attack, so the spell isn't really targeting the creature, even though the first iteration of the spell intended it to work like that. This was changed via errata to say "within 5 feet of you" in conjunction with a range of "self" for the target of the spell in order to make all of this function correctly through the use of the AoE mechanic.
All of this works in a way that's identical to Sword Burst for all of the reasons previously discussed.
The spell has you brandish a weapon and make a melee attack with it as part of the spellcasting, but not as a spell effect. The target of the melee attack becomes the target of the spell, and a hit enables the effects of the spell to affect this target. This interpretation is consistent with the rules of the game.
This is exactly how the spell used to work. In the past, the spell had a Range of "5 feet" and the targeted creature was "within range" and that results in exactly what you've just written.
This spell was changed via errata to work completely differently. It's now an AoE spell that functions as previously explained.
No, it's not. The Range of a spell is the maximum distance between the source of a spell and the target of the spell when it is cast. This is always either a number "expressed in feet" or a target that "you can touch" or refers to a spell that can "affect only you" (self) and also some AoE spells "also have a range of self".
Range
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range. For a spell like magic missile, the target is a creature. For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts.
Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.
Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell's effect must be you.
Chain Lightning makes an explicit Specific vs General exception to the general rules of spellcasting because the source of the targeting process has changed and so a new range is created for that source. Booming Blade has nothing to do with this.
The point of origin is where the spell originates, but it doesn't need to be a target as explained here:
That's false. The point of origin for an AoE spell is always the target of the spell. It's one of the 3 valid options for what can be targeted in the game and it's the only valid option given "for an area of effect".
A spell’s description specifies its area of effect...
So if the effect is not specified for the AoE in your interpretation of Booming Blade, so there is no specified AoE. An area isn't good enough, it needs to be specified for a magical effect for that area.
This is false. That's not what the rule says. It's the Area that must be specified. You also need to know what happens to creatures or objects that are located within this Area. Additional flavor text about the Area itself is not required. Defining a size and shape and location of an Area satisfies this requirement.
This biggest problem is that the ‘within 5 feet’ is specified as the distance you can make the melee attack for the Booming Blade spell. You and I agree that this melee attack is not an effect of the spell, let alone its AoE. That means this specified range, or distance, is not for the AoE.
It may seem like semantics but some of this does have mechanical significance. The melee weapon attack is not a magical effect in and of itself -- it's not described as a "spell attack" so the spell itself is not directly magically targeting a creature with this attack. The affected creature is not magically affected by being struck by a mundane weapon, which is why part of what happens to the affected creature is simply that "the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects". But the attack itself is part of the spell effect in the sense that the casting of the spell causes this attack to happen.
The point I was making is, this 'within 5 feet' is not a specification of the AoE. Saying "but the attack is integral to the spell" doesn't change that. How are you gonna say this range is for the AoE, but the word target is not for the spell? Double standard much?
The "within 5 feet of you" is not just a distance. It specifies the Area within which the creature must be located in order to be affected. In that sense it does restrict the possible locations where the melee weapon attack can occur, which comes into play if the spellcaster is wielding a reach weapon. If it weren't for the AoE mechanic, and the attack target was instead considered to be the target of the spell, then this attack wouldn't be able to reach the creature at all because the attack would instead be made "within range" and the range for this spell is "self". Remember, "The target of a spell must be within the spell's range".
That's absurd given there's an explicit range given for the attack in the effect. The range block cannot limit the attack if the attack has its own specified range for attack.
Booming Blade used to use the phrase "within range" when the affected creature was considered to be the target of the spell. The designers realized that this was erroneous because the creature was being struck with a mundane weapon instead of a spell attack, so the spell isn't really targeting the creature, even though the first iteration of the spell intended it to work like that. This was changed via errata to say "within 5 feet of you" in conjunction with a range of "self" for the target of the spell in order to make all of this function correctly through the use of the AoE mechanic.
It is absurd for you to make up an intention the designers had when they have already spoken for themselves... You don't get to make a RAW interpretation, disreguard the stated intention of the designers, then make one up for them. Absurd...
Chain Lightning makes an explicit Specific vs General exception to the general rules of spellcasting because the source of the targeting process has changed and so a new range is created for that source. Booming Blade has nothing to do with this.
And Booming Blade would also be an explicit exception given it says you can attack a creature 'within 5 feet of you.' But it doesn't matter if it's explicit or not... Chain lightning is explicit, so is lightning lure... Yet chain lightning is fine specific beats general while lightning lure is 'clearly in error.' It doesn't matter what the spell says explicitly, you'll just write it off anyways.
A spell’s description specifies its area of effect...
So if the effect is not specified for the AoE in your interpretation of Booming Blade, so there is no specified AoE. An area isn't good enough, it needs to be specified for a magical effect for that area.
This is false. That's not what the rule says. It's the Area that must be specified. You also need to know what happens to creatures or objects that are located within this Area. Additional flavor text about the Area itself is not required. Defining a size and shape and location of an Area satisfies this requirement.
I quoted the rule, didn't I? Does it say "A spell’s description specifies only its area for an area of effect"? No... The effect is part of the area of effect, which is why I put it in bold. How do you have an AoE without the effect? Both the area (size and shape) and its effect must be specified in the spell description. Why do you think leaving it to the player's imagination is common practice for 1% of the spells? Again... Your head cannon is not RAW.
The point of origin is where the spell originates, but it doesn't need to be a target as explained here:
That's false. The point of origin for an AoE spell is always the target of the spell. It's one of the 3 valid options for what can be targeted in the game and it's the only valid option given "for an area of effect".
You have not cited any rule that establishes what I highlighted. There is nothing RAW that says that.
Edit: in anticipation of you saying "but I quoted the rule," the rule says you can target a point of origin for an area of effect. It does not say targeting the point of origin is for all AoEs. An AoE can target a creature instead of the point of origin, and that spell would be consistent with this rule.
The point I was making is, this 'within 5 feet' is not a specification of the AoE. Saying "but the attack is integral to the spell" doesn't change that. How are you gonna say this range is for the AoE, but the word target is not for the spell? Double standard much?
I don't understand what you mean by double standard here. Yes, the AoE is fully specified here. The size, shape and location are given for an Area that extends outside of the range of the spell that the affected creature must be located within.
One of the problems here is that you keep on using the term "Range" in situations where it's not appropriate. Saying ". . . this range is for the AoE" doesn't make sense if you are referring to "within 5 feet of you". That text has nothing to do with a Range. The Range of the AoE is "self". The text "within 5 feet of you" is a size and shape and location of an Area . . . not the "range" of the Area. The word "target" in the context of Booming Blade is not being used as the target of the spell, it's the target of the attack. This is very uncommon to see in a spell description but it's perfectly valid. It just doesn't mean what you think it means. The attack target is not the target of the spell. The point of origin is the target of the spell. I'm not even really sure what point you are making with this -- what double standard?
That's absurd given there's an explicit range given for the attack in the effect. The range block cannot limit the attack if the attack has its own specified range for attack.
There's not an explicit range given for the attack. There is an area within which the melee weapon attack and the affected creature being attacked must be located -- even if you are wielding a reach weapon which would normally provide a different "range" for making a melee weapon attack. It's correct that the range block does not limit the attack's location, but that's because a creature can be affected by an AoE that extends outside of the spell's range. In fact, that's the only way for a spell to do so. The term "within range" is never used in this spell because the spell is not directly targeting any creatures.
It is absurd for you to make up an intention the designers had when they have already spoken for themselves... You don't get to make a RAW interpretation, disreguard the stated intention of the designers, then make one up for them. Absurd...
I'm not sure what this rant is about. Using the word "absurd" in your posts doesn't make those posts any less wrong. I was pointing out that the developers realized that the spell having a range of 5 feet didn't actually make sense for what the spell description was describing. The exact developer comment was posted earlier in the thread:
"in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything we have some spells that actually appeared in an earlier DnD book (Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide) that now reappear and their range changed and that change has naturally caused some questions. Their ranges originally were that simple X ft meaning it could have the point of origin of the spell [...] over there. So these spells were spells like Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade which when you then read them you see: I'm actually making a weapon attack with these spells and these were actually unusual spells when we wrote them because we had not yet created at that point spells that incorporated into themselves an attack. We had spells like the Paladin's smite spells in the PHB that enhanced attacksbut did not include within them the weapon attack itself. Here we experimented with that andto be totally frank the original range entries were wrong[...]
we were looking at the spells and realized these range entries are simply wrong because like Burning Hands like Color Spray like Lightning Bolt you swinging your weapon can never originate any farther away than yourself. Saying range X feet was simply an error and so we fixed it."
This developer comment is related to the errata for this spell that constantly gets ignored in this thread.
Chain Lightning makes an explicit Specific vs General exception to the general rules of spellcasting because the source of the targeting process has changed and so a new range is created for that source. Booming Blade has nothing to do with this.
And Booming Blade would also be an explicit exception given it says you can attack a creature 'within 5 feet of you.' But it doesn't matter if it's explicit or not... Chain lightning is explicit, so is lightning lure... Yet chain lightning is fine specific beats general while lightning lure is 'clearly in error.' It doesn't matter what the spell says explicitly, you'll just write it off anyways.
These aren't the same thing at all.
Chain Lightning is a totally different type of spell -- it's not even an AoE spell. The spell directly targets a creature or object "within range". Then, we have this: "Three bolts then leap from that target to as many as three other targets, each of which must be within 30 feet of the first target." A whole new source is created here, so you can't use the initial range which is defined with respect to the original source of the spell. This whole mechanism is explicitly described by the spell, creating a specific exception to the targeting rules. But again, this is not even an AoE spell, so discussions about targeting within an AoE do not even apply here.
Lightning Lure on the other hand is just using the term target in a context that refers back to a general rule that doesn't exist.
A spell’s description specifies its area of effect...
So if the effect is not specified for the AoE in your interpretation of Booming Blade, so there is no specified AoE. An area isn't good enough, it needs to be specified for a magical effect for that area.
This is false. That's not what the rule says. It's the Area that must be specified. You also need to know what happens to creatures or objects that are located within this Area. Additional flavor text about the Area itself is not required. Defining a size and shape and location of an Area satisfies this requirement.
I quoted the rule, didn't I? Does it say "A spell’s description specifies only its area for an area of effect"? No... The effect is part of the area of effect, which is why I put it in bold. How do you have an AoE without the effect? Both the area (size and shape) and its effect must be specified in the spell description. Why do you think leaving it to the player's imagination is common practice for 1% of the spells? Again... Your head cannon is not RAW.
Nope, this doesn't fly. It doesn't matter if you quoted the rule and if you picked a word to bold if the rule doesn't actually say what you are saying, and it doesn't actually mean what you mean. The term "Area of Effect" is all one singular noun. It's an Area. It's the Area that is always specified by the spell's description.
The term "RAW" refers to the Rules As they are actually Written.
The point of origin is where the spell originates, but it doesn't need to be a target as explained here:
That's false. The point of origin for an AoE spell is always the target of the spell. It's one of the 3 valid options for what can be targeted in the game and it's the only valid option given "for an area of effect".
You have not cited any rule that establishes what I highlighted. There is nothing RAW that says that.
Edit: in anticipation of you saying "but I quoted the rule," the rule says you can target a point of origin for an area of effect. It does not say targeting the point of origin is for all AoEs. An AoE can target a creature instead of the point of origin, and that spell would be consistent with this rule.
This is false. The rule has been quoted many times. An AoE cannot target a creature instead of the point of origin. The only valid choice for an Area of Effect is its point of origin. It's all dependent on what the spell is trying to affect with the spell's magic, as told to you by the spell's description. If the spell attempts to affect a creature, it targets the creature. If the spell attempts to affect an object, it targets the object. If the spell attempts to affect an Area, it targets the point of origin for an Area of Effect:
Targets
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect
The point I was making is, this 'within 5 feet' is not a specification of the AoE. Saying "but the attack is integral to the spell" doesn't change that. How are you gonna say this range is for the AoE, but the word target is not for the spell? Double standard much?
I don't understand what you mean by double standard here.
Let me simplify it then... if "the target" isn't the spell target then "within 5 feet" isn't the spell AoE. You can't pick and choose.
That's absurd given there's an explicit range given for the attack in the effect. The range block cannot limit the attack if the attack has its own specified range for attack.
There's not an explicit range given for the attack. There is an area within which the melee weapon attack and the affected creature being attacked must be located -- even if you are wielding a reach weapon which would normally provide a different "range" for making a melee weapon attack.
A range is just a distance from you to the target... which is exactly what's being described. It doesn't need to say range to be a range... again... plain English.
It is absurd for you to make up an intention the designers had when they have already spoken for themselves... You don't get to make a RAW interpretation, disreguard the stated intention of the designers, then make one up for them. Absurd...
I'm not sure what this rant is about. Using the word "absurd" in your posts doesn't make those posts any less wrong. I was pointing out that the developers realized that the spell having a range of 5 feet didn't actually make sense for what the spell description was describing. The exact developer comment was posted earlier in the thread:
And what did they say? They said it doesn't make sense for the point of origin to be on the creature... the point is origin should be on self. But the target remains to be the creature. They said nothing about changing the target, which is what you attempted to say they intended to change. You don't get to make that up for them. They have spoken for themselves. If you don't want to accept their ruling, fine. But don't make up a RAI for the developers.
Chain Lightning makes an explicit Specific vs General exception to the general rules of spellcasting because the source of the targeting process has changed and so a new range is created for that source. Booming Blade has nothing to do with this.
And Booming Blade would also be an explicit exception given it says you can attack a creature 'within 5 feet of you.' But it doesn't matter if it's explicit or not... Chain lightning is explicit, so is lightning lure... Yet chain lightning is fine specific beats general while lightning lure is 'clearly in error.' It doesn't matter what the spell says explicitly, you'll just write it off anyways.
These aren't the same thing at all.
Chain Lightning is a totally different type of spell -- it's not even an AoE spell. The spell directly targets a creature or object "within range". Then, we have this: "Three bolts then leap from that target to as many as three other targets, each of which must be within 30 feet of the first target." A whole new source is created here, so you can't use the initial range which is defined with respect to the original source of the spell. This whole mechanism is explicitly described by the spell, creating a specific exception to the targeting rules. But again, this is not even an AoE spell, so discussions about targeting within an AoE do not even apply here.
Wait, it's not an AoE? But it says "within 30 feet." Those are the magic words which make a spell an AoE. So now you're not holding that standard? Not surprising. You haven't been consistent this whole thread.
Lightning Lure on the other hand is just using the term target in a context that refers back to a general rule that doesn't exist.
Neither of these is the case for Booming Blade.
Lightning lure explicitly says "The target must succeed on a Strength saving throw..." it's not referring to a general rule, it's calling the creature you "strike at" a target. Which illustrates the issue... It doesn't matter what the spell says, you will just say it's an error whenever you disagree. Your ethos is out the widow at this point.
Nope, this doesn't fly. It doesn't matter if you quoted the rule and if you picked a word to bold if the rule doesn't actually say what you are saying, and it doesn't actually mean what you mean. The term "Area of Effect" is all one singular noun.
If it's a singular noun then it requires both... otherwise they'd just call it area. What really doesn't fly is "within 5 feet are magic words which establish an AoE... and no, I don't need a rule to say so." There are no magic words, and even if there were it wouldn't be that. It's much more common for a spell to say "within a 5-foot radius in range." But again, magic word arguments aren't compelling. Plain English. Remember?
The term "RAW" refers to the Rules As they are actually Written.
Exactly, which means you can't say "make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you" is for an AoE. It's clearly a distance given FOR a targeted melee attack. To say otherwise is not RAW.
This is false. The rule has been quoted many times. An AoE cannot target a creature instead of the point of origin. The only valid choice for an Area of Effect is its point of origin. It's all dependent on what the spell is trying to affect with the spell's magic, as told to you by the spell's description. If the spell attempts to affect a creature, it targets the creature. If the spell attempts to affect an object, it targets the object. If the spell attempts to affect an Area, it targets the point of origin for an Area of Effect
That is not RAW. If I said "I get in my car to drive" does that mean I can't drive if I'm not in my car? Clearly not... So when it says you can target "a point of origin for an area of effect" this doesn't mean an AoE can't target something other than the point of origin. RAW, it just means spell spells that target a point of origin are meant for an AoE. Perhaps you can look up affirming the consequent fallacy.
If someone is being this deliberately obtuse and belligerent, is there any recourse other than just ignoring the user so you don't see their posts or get notified of their replies?
I believe there is a setting that you can change to unsub from threads you contribute to, so i only get notified for direct replies now. I have actually only ignored two users, and as TexasDevin said a few pages back by now, you can have a full and rewarding forum experience without those users who don't really provide accurate or useful posts or persist in posting contrary to known rulings.
If you believe the user is breaking a site guideline, you can report them, but posting contrarian posts that are only obtuse and belligerent without breaking those guidelines is technically safe (while still being bad etiquette, imo).
As far as this thread goes though, you can unsub from it specifically, as the re-hashing of ideas and opinions around what targets are or areas or whatever the current topic seems to be doesn't really seem to be answering the original question.
Again, as I said a long time ago, if the op question is ambiguous then clearly one rando who knows better can't decide for any group.
Sorry everyone for dragging this on longer than it had to. I was making progress fleshing out the arguments but no progress was made toward mutual understanding. For that reason I will cease responding to this argument. My final thoughts are that clearly the intent of the spell is to use a melee attack to do extra magic effects as part of the cantrip. It's intended to target the attack target, and it's intended to place the point of origin at self. We know this from official rulings that have been shared already. To interpret otherwise is just being willfully contrarian.
I asked before if there is a possible wording of the spell that could make it work 'as intended' based on what has been shared from. JC on X and Sage Advice; I basically got a no from that. Just thinking about someone claiming that the developer's expressed intent of the spell is simply not possible within the game mechanics they themselves designed... well... I'll let you all entertain that thought. But thanks for helping to answer my question.
I just had one question that up2ng has never satisfactorily addressed. How does one know when a use of "target" is erroneous? Why isn't the one in War Caster erroneous? Who decides?
This is ultimately decided by the DM for the game. Whenever there is any sort of conflict or inconsistency or ambiguity or lack of clarity in the rules then the DM just has to make the best ruling possible given all of the information available to him.
To me, if a mechanically significant game term in used in a manner that is inconsistent with the rules, such as in cases when it is used in context to refer back to a rule that doesn't exist, then that constitutes an error or inconsistency in the rules.
The use of the term "target" in the War Caster Feat is very much consistent with the general rules for spellcasting.
To give an example on a different topic within the game:
There is a section in Chapter 8: Adventuring --> Movement --> Activity While Traveling --> Other Activities which says this:
"Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger. These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats."
You sort of know what is meant by this and it's fine, but the way that this is worded in this context makes it seem like there is a rule that involves making some sort of group check to notice threats as related to the surprise mechanic -- as if the entire group would be surprised or not surprised. However, as we know, surprise is determined individually -- some characters can be surprised while others might notice the threat and are not surprised. This is another example where it appears that this probably worked differently at some point along the way during playtesting before the initial 5e release and not everything throughout the game was properly cleaned up to reflect the final decision about how the surprise mechanic would work for 5e. That makes the above bit of text from Chapter 8 "an error", or the terms involved were used "erroneously". The context of that text appears to refer back to a rule that doesn't exist.
Ultimately, the DM needs to figure these sorts of things out and make the best rulings that he can for his game.
Let me simplify it then... if "the target" isn't the spell target then "within 5 feet" isn't the spell AoE. You can't pick and choose.
This makes no sense. It's precisely because we're dealing with an AoE mechanic that the attack target cannot be the spell target. The target of an AoE is the point of origin. Nothing else can possibly be targeted anyway in this case because the range of the spell is "self", and the spell target must be within range.
What does picking and choosing have to do with anything? It's not as if this is some sort of negotiation. We read the rules and we follow them all.
A range is just a distance from you to the target... which is exactly what's being described. It doesn't need to say range to be a range... again... plain English.
That happens to work out that way in this case, but it won't work out that way for most other possible AoEs that could have been specified. If the spell created an AoE more like how Fireball creates it and the spell had said that the spellcaster makes an attack against a creature "within" that particular AoE, then that wouldn't match up well at all to the idea that it's also some sort of range for the attack.
In this exact case, if you want to think of "within 5 feet of you" as also being some sort of range for the attack (and we'll just ignore for now how wielding a reach weapon would complicate that) then that's probably fine. But that would have nothing to do with the range of the spell and it would have nothing to do with the target of the spell.
I was pointing out that the developers realized that the spell having a range of 5 feet didn't actually make sense for what the spell description was describing. The exact developer comment was posted earlier in the thread:
And what did they say? They said it doesn't make sense for the point of origin to be on the creature... the point is origin should be on self. But the target remains to be the creature. They said nothing about changing the target, which is what you attempted to say they intended to change. You don't get to make that up for them. They have spoken for themselves. If you don't want to accept their ruling, fine. But don't make up a RAI for the developers.
Wow. Are you serious with this!?? I literally JUST posted the exact quote from the developers. Maybe you missed it. Let's go ahead and post it again:
"in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything we have some spells that actually appeared in an earlier DnD book (Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide) that now reappear and their range changed and that change has naturally caused some questions. Their ranges originally were that simple X ft meaning it could have the point of origin of the spell [...] over there. So these spells were spells like Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade which when you then read them you see: I'm actually making a weapon attack with these spells and these were actually unusual spells when we wrote them because we had not yet created at that point spells that incorporated into themselves an attack. We had spells like the Paladin's smite spells in the PHB that enhanced attacksbut did not include within them the weapon attack itself. Here we experimented with that and to be totally frank the original range entries were wrong [...]
we were looking at the spells and realized these range entries are simply wrong because like Burning Hands like Color Spray like Lightning Bolt you swinging your weapon can never originate any farther away than yourself. Saying range X feet was simply an error and so we fixed it."
This developer comment is related to the errata for this spell that constantly gets ignored in this thread.
How about YOU don't get to make up what the developers said?
Wait, it's not an AoE? But it says "within 30 feet."
Chain Lightning is a totally different type of spell -- it's not even an AoE spell. The spell directly targets a creature or object "within range". Then, we have this: "Three bolts then leap from that target to as many as three other targets, each of which must be within 30 feet of the first target." A whole new source is created here, so you can't use the initial range which is defined with respect to the original source of the spell. This whole mechanism is explicitly described by the spell, creating a specific exception to the targeting rules. But again, this is not even an AoE spell, so discussions about targeting within an AoE do not even apply here.
Lightning lure explicitly says "The target must succeed on a Strength saving throw..." it's not referring to a general rule, it's calling the creature you "strike at" a target. Which illustrates the issue... It doesn't matter what the spell says, you will just say it's an error whenever you disagree. Your ethos is out the widow at this point.
Lightning Lure explicitly says the wrong thing. It's using the term "target" in a context that refers back to a general rule that doesn't exist.
If you were to take that sentence totally out of context, the text which says "The target must succeed on a Strength saving throw . . ." would have no meaning. Target? What target? What was the target? There would be no way to know. The spell isn't actually telling you. It's not creating any sort of explicit specific exception. It's just a term that has no meaning out of context. The only reason why we think that we know what it's talking about is because it was used in context with the rest of the spell description. We still have to make the leap though, and the only way to do that is to look up the rule for targeting for AoE spells and find the rule that specifies that all creatures which are affected by an AoE are targets of the spell. Then, we can come back to the spell description and match up the "creature" that was mentioned in the previous sentence with the "target" that is mentioned in this sentence and conclude that these are referring to the same thing based on the general rule for spellcasting that we found.
The only problem is . . . there is no such general rule. So, the term "target" in this context refers to absolutely nothing, since the creature that was mentioned cannot be the target. This is an error in the spell description.
The term "Area of Effect" is all one singular noun.
If it's a singular noun then it requires both... otherwise they'd just call it area . . . Plain English. Remember?
That's not how English works. United States of America, State of The Union, City of Bridges, 4th of July, Bachelor of Science, Wheel of Fortune, Maid of Honor, Walk of Shame, and so on.
The first word is the thing. The rest is just descriptive. You are talking about a city, not a bridge. You are talking about a maid, not honor. You are talking about a wheel, not fortune. It's a singular noun where the first word is the thing. The thing is what needs to be specified.
Exactly, which means you can't say "make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you" is for an AoE. It's clearly a distance given FOR a targeted melee attack. To say otherwise is not RAW.
What you've just quoted is not a rule. That's a snippet of a spell description. I disagree with you about what it means and about how the spell works, and the explanation has already been given several times.
This is false. The rule has been quoted many times. An AoE cannot target a creature instead of the point of origin. The only valid choice for an Area of Effect is its point of origin. It's all dependent on what the spell is trying to affect with the spell's magic, as told to you by the spell's description. If the spell attempts to affect a creature, it targets the creature. If the spell attempts to affect an object, it targets the object. If the spell attempts to affect an Area, it targets the point of origin for an Area of Effect
That is not RAW. If I said "I get in my car to drive" does that mean I can't drive if I'm not in my car? Clearly not... So when it says you can target "a point of origin for an area of effect" this doesn't mean an AoE can't target something other than the point of origin. RAW, it just means spell spells that target a point of origin are meant for an AoE. Perhaps you can look up affirming the consequent fallacy.
Um, the rule has been directly quoted several times now:
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
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is common sense for me, AntonSirius.
You cannot limit the height of this spell, or you wouldn't be able to change the clouds, wind, or temperature above 5 miles, which is necessary to produce rain or snow, for example. Using a sphere limits not only the height in your current position but also the height along the radius of that sphere.
DnD 5e spells are an evolution of spells from AD&D or DnD 3.5. If you check them, it's clear that the spell defines a circle (using the radius), but does not limit the effect in terms of height. Basically, you're controlling a local area.
For example, for DnD 3.5, we had this:
What the spell was listed as in prior editions has no bearing on the 5e version, sorry
As for the quoted part, fireball can damage things beyond its listed range. So yes, if you insist that magical changes to weather within 5 miles of you must affect wider weather patterns -- which I don't -- you can absolutely still limit the height of the spell
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
1) Y'all are applying Earth physics to worlds that are very much not Earth
2) You're within 5 miles of the caster, and you look up and see a clear sky. That doesn't mean if you fly up 6 miles, it's still clear
I mean, they knew what cylinders were when they wrote the rules for the spell. They elected not to define the area of effect that way. RAW, it's a sphere with a 5-mile radius. How you reconcile that with how you think weather and magic should interact is up to you
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)
When you say something has a radius in three-dimensional space and don't give any other dimensions, you're defining a sphere, whether you explicitly use that word or not. globe of invulnerability doesn't use the word "sphere" either
If the caster weren't on the ground and were hovering in the air instead, on an airship or whatever, how would you judge the area affected by control weather?
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)
Regarding previous D&D versions, I know, but I mentioned that because the spell entry is an evolution, and the intent is the same as those spells in 2e and 3e, as I said.
Control Weather is not a sphere, just an area. The word 'sphere' is not present in the spell entry. We cannot assume it is a sphere just by reading the Range parameter and the phrase 'within 5 feet of you,' as up2ng incorrectly suggests.
The following situation doesn't make sense to me (h = 5 miles, R = 5 miles):
Except for the gray shaded portion of that picture which doesn't actually exist with this spell, the general idea depicted by that diagram is exactly what happens with that spell. The surrounding area can have totally different weather conditions than exists within the area -- that's the whole point of the spell.
Areas of Effect don't work like that in 5e. The "Area" is always a 3d space. There would have to be some incredibly specific language that overrides this such as what you see in certain portions of the Symbol spell where it's talking about the procedures for setting up a glyph that affects a surface. Even in that spell, the end result winds up just being a normal spherical AoE. (That spell also happens to be a good example of actually creating a Specific vs General exception to AoE targeting rules --> "Each creature in the sphere when the glyph activates is targeted by its effect, as is a creature that enters the sphere for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there").
It's an 8th-level spell. It should be doing things that bend the usual rules of reality
EDIT: But again, if you don't like that answer, then just view it like fireball. You change the weather within the listed area of effect, and that can spill outside of the listed area, just as the damage from a fireball can spill outside its listed range
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)
Symbol: "Once triggered, the glyph glows, filling a 60-foot-radius sphere with dim light for 10 minutes"
The word "sphere" is not present in Control Weather. Spells do only what they say they do.
By the way, regarding the Symbol spell, the terms "creature" and "target" are used interchangeably.
It's not that I don't like your answer, it's just that I don't see how this spell can be contained in a sphere, because that's not the intent when we read the spell entry.
Anyway, I prefer not to continue this discussion. To me, Booming Blade is not an AoE spell. The range "Self (5-foot radius)" and the phrase "within 5 feet of you" are not enough to assume the spell creates a sphere. We need to read the entire spell description to determine the shape of the AoE (if any)
I think I’ve given ample opportunity for you to clarify, so I’ll criticize it as is.
So my understanding of your explanation of the mechanics of Booming Blade is that it creates an AoE, that does nothing… but then has a trigger of acting upon a target that is hit by the melee attack. You agree none of this is actually written in the spell description. The effect of the Area of Effect is not specified by the spell, but this isn’t a problem because a size and shape is specified and that’s good enough. The size and shape are specified by the ‘within 5 feet’ language in the spell, as well as the (5-foot radius) in the range block.
Ok, so problems with this… first, I do think the effect for the AoE must be specified. If it is not, the AoE is not properly specified and thus the spell does not have an AoE. This biggest problem is that the ‘within 5 feet’ is specified as the distance you can make the melee attack for the Booming Blade spell. You and I agree that this melee attack is not an effect of the spell, let alone its AoE. That means this specified range, or distance, is not for the AoE. You can’t just say ‘those are the magic words’ and ignore the context of what it’s actually specifying. As was said before, D&D 5e is meant to be written in plain english, not legalize, so magic word arguments that ignore the context aren’t compelling.
For Sword Burst, the AoE is specified. The area is specified by ‘within 5 feet’ is specified as a range from the caster to affect all creatures within, forcing them to make a saving throw or else take damage. Since the size, shape, and effect for the AoE are specified, this spell is properly specified. For Booming blade, the size and shape are not specified because the ‘within 5 feet’ is specified for a melee attack, not a spell effect. There is also no spell effect specified to affect an area, and I don’t think making one up is a good way to fix this. How should we interpret it instead?
The spell has you brandish a weapon and make a melee attack with it as part of the spellcasting, but not as a spell effect. The target of the melee attack becomes the target of the spell, and a hit enables the effects of the spell to affect this target. This interpretation is consistent with the rules of the game. “But you can’t target something out of range.” Well… 5-foot radius is part of the range. I know you said “radius” must always refer to an AoE, but this is again… a magic word argument; not an actual rule. Since there is no AoE without a specified effect, it can’t be for an AoE since there is no AoE. Second, spells like Chain Lightning can and do target creatures outside of range. Since the target is the attack target, which is ‘within 5 feet,’ it clearly can be targeted even if we assume it’s outside of range.
So hopefully I represented you accurately, but if I didn’t just know… I tried to give you opportunity to explain yourself.
For relevant rules we have the folling:
This explains that the target is meant to be affected, and since no AoE is specified, the point of origin doesn't qualify as a target for Booming Blade. The point of origin is where the spell originates, but it doesn't need to be a target as explained here:
This is also relevant:
So if the effect is not specified for the AoE in your interpretation of Booming Blade, so there is no specified AoE. An area isn't good enough, it needs to be specified for a magical effect for that area.
It looks like you may have completely missed the two points that were made with regard to the Symbol spell. For convenience I'll repost that here:
"Areas of Effect [ are not 2d effects ] in 5e. The "Area" is always a 3d space. There would have to be some incredibly specific language that overrides this such as what you see in certain portions of the Symbol spell where it's talking about the procedures for setting up a glyph that affects a surface. Even in that spell, the end result winds up just being a normal spherical AoE. (That spell also happens to be a good example of actually creating a Specific vs General exception to AoE targeting rules --> "Each creature in the sphere when the glyph activates is targeted by its effect, as is a creature that enters the sphere for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there").
The word "sphere" does not have to appear anywhere in an AoE spell that creates a spherical AoE. That simply is not a requirement for the sphere existing. You only have to have the specifications for the area that is created -- the size and shape and location. "Within 5 feet of you" checks all three of those boxes very elegantly.
It's not that Symbol uses "creature" and "target" interchangeably. That's not what is actually happening with that spell, and it completely misses the point that I already made about that spell. Unlike all of the other spells that we've talked about, the Symbol spell actually creates a Specific vs General exception to AoE targeting rules by explaining that the magic that is sitting within the area is not just passively filling up space -- the magic within this area explicitly actively targets creatures. It's as if it's scanning its own area looking for creatures and then physically goes after any creature that it finds. The spell was written this way because by default AoE magic does not do this. The general rules for spellcasting are overridden to create a unique spell that behaves differently than the default behavior. This is completely different than how spells like Fireball are written, which are merely attempting to refer back to a general rule that does not exist. I was pointing out how the Symbol spell is written to help people understand the difference. It's also a good example of how a spell needs to be written if it's specifically trying to affect a 2d space, which is not the default for how AoE spells work either.
This information is exactly what is necessary to determine that the spell creates a sphere -- there is no other mechanism for this spell to function correctly as written. The spell used to target a creature within a range of 5 feet. This was explicitly and deliberately changed via errata to use the AoE mechanism instead.
That's more or less correct. Keep in mind that all of this happens somewhat simultaneously. The melee weapon attack occurs right away upon casting the spell as part of the spell's effect in the sense that the casting of the spell causes this attack to happen. In terms of the AoE doing "nothing" -- sure, you could look at it that way . . . instead of providing a typical Saving Throw mechanic to allow a creature to be unaffected by the AoE, the attack roll mechanic is used instead for the same purpose. If the attack is a miss, then the AoE does "nothing".
I disagree. The spell's description includes a Range of "self" and a hard-coded 5-foot-radius spherical area, confirmed by the phrase "within 5 feet of you". The spell is requiring the attack target to be located within this Area, and the creature is only affected if it is hit by the attack.
This is pretty much correct, except that the effect is specified in the ways that you've just mentioned. It's the target of the spell, which results in affecting the Area with the spell's magic by filling the space with this effect. There is no additional flavor text that might describe what this magic looks, sounds, smells, tastes or feels like so it's apparently imperceptible and that's fine. Such flavor text is not a requirement.
I assume that you are talking about wanting to see some flavor text about how the magic that fills up the space is perceived. This is not a requirement for the existence of an AoE.
It may seem like semantics but some of this does have mechanical significance. The melee weapon attack is not a magical effect in and of itself -- it's not described as a "spell attack" so the spell itself is not directly magically targeting a creature with this attack. The affected creature is not magically affected by being struck by a mundane weapon, which is why part of what happens to the affected creature is simply that "the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects". But the attack itself is part of the spell effect in the sense that the casting of the spell causes this attack to happen.
The "within 5 feet of you" is not just a distance. It specifies the Area within which the creature must be located in order to be affected. In that sense it does restrict the possible locations where the melee weapon attack can occur, which comes into play if the spellcaster is wielding a reach weapon. If it weren't for the AoE mechanic, and the attack target was instead considered to be the target of the spell, then this attack wouldn't be able to reach the creature at all because the attack would instead be made "within range" and the range for this spell is "self". Remember, "The target of a spell must be within the spell's range".
For example, the Magic Missile spell has a Range of 120 feet. It's specified that "Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range." This spell simply would never be written as "Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within 150 feet", because such a spell description would break the core general spellcasting rules for how the Range of a spell works in the game. In addition, the spell would also never be written as "Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within 120 feet." The reason is because the range for your spell might change for some reason. You might be afflicted with some sort of curse that cuts the ranges for all of the spells that you cast in half, for example. If that happens, then having the hard-coded number in the spell description would once again cause the casting of that spell to break the core general spellcasting rules for how the Range of a spell works in the game. For that reason, you always see the phrase "within range" when describing the target of a spell instead of a hard-coded number.
Booming Blade used to use the phrase "within range" when the affected creature was considered to be the target of the spell. The designers realized that this was erroneous because the creature was being struck with a mundane weapon instead of a spell attack, so the spell isn't really targeting the creature, even though the first iteration of the spell intended it to work like that. This was changed via errata to say "within 5 feet of you" in conjunction with a range of "self" for the target of the spell in order to make all of this function correctly through the use of the AoE mechanic.
All of this works in a way that's identical to Sword Burst for all of the reasons previously discussed.
This is exactly how the spell used to work. In the past, the spell had a Range of "5 feet" and the targeted creature was "within range" and that results in exactly what you've just written.
This spell was changed via errata to work completely differently. It's now an AoE spell that functions as previously explained.
No, it's not. The Range of a spell is the maximum distance between the source of a spell and the target of the spell when it is cast. This is always either a number "expressed in feet" or a target that "you can touch" or refers to a spell that can "affect only you" (self) and also some AoE spells "also have a range of self".
Chain Lightning makes an explicit Specific vs General exception to the general rules of spellcasting because the source of the targeting process has changed and so a new range is created for that source. Booming Blade has nothing to do with this.
This is false. The target of a spell must be within the spell's range:
Furthermore, the target of Booming Blade is not the attack target. It's the point of origin for an AoE spell with a range of self.
That's false. The point of origin for an AoE spell is always the target of the spell. It's one of the 3 valid options for what can be targeted in the game and it's the only valid option given "for an area of effect".
This is false. That's not what the rule says. It's the Area that must be specified. You also need to know what happens to creatures or objects that are located within this Area. Additional flavor text about the Area itself is not required. Defining a size and shape and location of an Area satisfies this requirement.
I'll cut this down for simplicity.
The point I was making is, this 'within 5 feet' is not a specification of the AoE. Saying "but the attack is integral to the spell" doesn't change that. How are you gonna say this range is for the AoE, but the word target is not for the spell? Double standard much?
That's absurd given there's an explicit range given for the attack in the effect. The range block cannot limit the attack if the attack has its own specified range for attack.
It is absurd for you to make up an intention the designers had when they have already spoken for themselves... You don't get to make a RAW interpretation, disreguard the stated intention of the designers, then make one up for them. Absurd...
And Booming Blade would also be an explicit exception given it says you can attack a creature 'within 5 feet of you.' But it doesn't matter if it's explicit or not... Chain lightning is explicit, so is lightning lure... Yet chain lightning is fine specific beats general while lightning lure is 'clearly in error.' It doesn't matter what the spell says explicitly, you'll just write it off anyways.
I quoted the rule, didn't I? Does it say "A spell’s description specifies only its area for an area of effect"? No... The effect is part of the area of effect, which is why I put it in bold. How do you have an AoE without the effect? Both the area (size and shape) and its effect must be specified in the spell description. Why do you think leaving it to the player's imagination is common practice for 1% of the spells? Again... Your head cannon is not RAW.
Looks like I accidentally deleted a portion of my reply. I'll rewrite it.
You have not cited any rule that establishes what I highlighted. There is nothing RAW that says that.
Edit: in anticipation of you saying "but I quoted the rule," the rule says you can target a point of origin for an area of effect. It does not say targeting the point of origin is for all AoEs. An AoE can target a creature instead of the point of origin, and that spell would be consistent with this rule.
I don't understand what you mean by double standard here. Yes, the AoE is fully specified here. The size, shape and location are given for an Area that extends outside of the range of the spell that the affected creature must be located within.
One of the problems here is that you keep on using the term "Range" in situations where it's not appropriate. Saying ". . . this range is for the AoE" doesn't make sense if you are referring to "within 5 feet of you". That text has nothing to do with a Range. The Range of the AoE is "self". The text "within 5 feet of you" is a size and shape and location of an Area . . . not the "range" of the Area. The word "target" in the context of Booming Blade is not being used as the target of the spell, it's the target of the attack. This is very uncommon to see in a spell description but it's perfectly valid. It just doesn't mean what you think it means. The attack target is not the target of the spell. The point of origin is the target of the spell. I'm not even really sure what point you are making with this -- what double standard?
There's not an explicit range given for the attack. There is an area within which the melee weapon attack and the affected creature being attacked must be located -- even if you are wielding a reach weapon which would normally provide a different "range" for making a melee weapon attack. It's correct that the range block does not limit the attack's location, but that's because a creature can be affected by an AoE that extends outside of the spell's range. In fact, that's the only way for a spell to do so. The term "within range" is never used in this spell because the spell is not directly targeting any creatures.
I'm not sure what this rant is about. Using the word "absurd" in your posts doesn't make those posts any less wrong. I was pointing out that the developers realized that the spell having a range of 5 feet didn't actually make sense for what the spell description was describing. The exact developer comment was posted earlier in the thread:
"in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything we have some spells that actually appeared in an earlier DnD book (Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide) that now reappear and their range changed and that change has naturally caused some questions. Their ranges originally were that simple X ft meaning it could have the point of origin of the spell [...] over there. So these spells were spells like Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade which when you then read them you see: I'm actually making a weapon attack with these spells and these were actually unusual spells when we wrote them because we had not yet created at that point spells that incorporated into themselves an attack. We had spells like the Paladin's smite spells in the PHB that enhanced attacks but did not include within them the weapon attack itself. Here we experimented with that and to be totally frank the original range entries were wrong [...]
we were looking at the spells and realized these range entries are simply wrong because like Burning Hands like Color Spray like Lightning Bolt you swinging your weapon can never originate any farther away than yourself. Saying range X feet was simply an error and so we fixed it."
This developer comment is related to the errata for this spell that constantly gets ignored in this thread.
These aren't the same thing at all.
Chain Lightning is a totally different type of spell -- it's not even an AoE spell. The spell directly targets a creature or object "within range". Then, we have this: "Three bolts then leap from that target to as many as three other targets, each of which must be within 30 feet of the first target." A whole new source is created here, so you can't use the initial range which is defined with respect to the original source of the spell. This whole mechanism is explicitly described by the spell, creating a specific exception to the targeting rules. But again, this is not even an AoE spell, so discussions about targeting within an AoE do not even apply here.
Lightning Lure on the other hand is just using the term target in a context that refers back to a general rule that doesn't exist.
Neither of these is the case for Booming Blade.
Nope, this doesn't fly. It doesn't matter if you quoted the rule and if you picked a word to bold if the rule doesn't actually say what you are saying, and it doesn't actually mean what you mean. The term "Area of Effect" is all one singular noun. It's an Area. It's the Area that is always specified by the spell's description.
The term "RAW" refers to the Rules As they are actually Written.
This is false. The rule has been quoted many times. An AoE cannot target a creature instead of the point of origin. The only valid choice for an Area of Effect is its point of origin. It's all dependent on what the spell is trying to affect with the spell's magic, as told to you by the spell's description. If the spell attempts to affect a creature, it targets the creature. If the spell attempts to affect an object, it targets the object. If the spell attempts to affect an Area, it targets the point of origin for an Area of Effect:
Let me simplify it then... if "the target" isn't the spell target then "within 5 feet" isn't the spell AoE. You can't pick and choose.
A range is just a distance from you to the target... which is exactly what's being described. It doesn't need to say range to be a range... again... plain English.
And what did they say? They said it doesn't make sense for the point of origin to be on the creature... the point is origin should be on self. But the target remains to be the creature. They said nothing about changing the target, which is what you attempted to say they intended to change. You don't get to make that up for them. They have spoken for themselves. If you don't want to accept their ruling, fine. But don't make up a RAI for the developers.
Wait, it's not an AoE? But it says "within 30 feet." Those are the magic words which make a spell an AoE. So now you're not holding that standard? Not surprising. You haven't been consistent this whole thread.
Lightning lure explicitly says "The target must succeed on a Strength saving throw..." it's not referring to a general rule, it's calling the creature you "strike at" a target. Which illustrates the issue... It doesn't matter what the spell says, you will just say it's an error whenever you disagree. Your ethos is out the widow at this point.
If it's a singular noun then it requires both... otherwise they'd just call it area. What really doesn't fly is "within 5 feet are magic words which establish an AoE... and no, I don't need a rule to say so." There are no magic words, and even if there were it wouldn't be that. It's much more common for a spell to say "within a 5-foot radius in range." But again, magic word arguments aren't compelling. Plain English. Remember?
Exactly, which means you can't say "make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you" is for an AoE. It's clearly a distance given FOR a targeted melee attack. To say otherwise is not RAW.
That is not RAW. If I said "I get in my car to drive" does that mean I can't drive if I'm not in my car? Clearly not... So when it says you can target "a point of origin for an area of effect" this doesn't mean an AoE can't target something other than the point of origin. RAW, it just means spell spells that target a point of origin are meant for an AoE. Perhaps you can look up affirming the consequent fallacy.
If someone is being this deliberately obtuse and belligerent, is there any recourse other than just ignoring the user so you don't see their posts or get notified of their replies?
I believe there is a setting that you can change to unsub from threads you contribute to, so i only get notified for direct replies now. I have actually only ignored two users, and as TexasDevin said a few pages back by now, you can have a full and rewarding forum experience without those users who don't really provide accurate or useful posts or persist in posting contrary to known rulings.
If you believe the user is breaking a site guideline, you can report them, but posting contrarian posts that are only obtuse and belligerent without breaking those guidelines is technically safe (while still being bad etiquette, imo).
As far as this thread goes though, you can unsub from it specifically, as the re-hashing of ideas and opinions around what targets are or areas or whatever the current topic seems to be doesn't really seem to be answering the original question.
Again, as I said a long time ago, if the op question is ambiguous then clearly one rando who knows better can't decide for any group.
Thanks, I didn't know about the unsub from thread feature.
Sorry everyone for dragging this on longer than it had to. I was making progress fleshing out the arguments but no progress was made toward mutual understanding. For that reason I will cease responding to this argument. My final thoughts are that clearly the intent of the spell is to use a melee attack to do extra magic effects as part of the cantrip. It's intended to target the attack target, and it's intended to place the point of origin at self. We know this from official rulings that have been shared already. To interpret otherwise is just being willfully contrarian.
I asked before if there is a possible wording of the spell that could make it work 'as intended' based on what has been shared from. JC on X and Sage Advice; I basically got a no from that. Just thinking about someone claiming that the developer's expressed intent of the spell is simply not possible within the game mechanics they themselves designed... well... I'll let you all entertain that thought. But thanks for helping to answer my question.
This is ultimately decided by the DM for the game. Whenever there is any sort of conflict or inconsistency or ambiguity or lack of clarity in the rules then the DM just has to make the best ruling possible given all of the information available to him.
To me, if a mechanically significant game term in used in a manner that is inconsistent with the rules, such as in cases when it is used in context to refer back to a rule that doesn't exist, then that constitutes an error or inconsistency in the rules.
The use of the term "target" in the War Caster Feat is very much consistent with the general rules for spellcasting.
To give an example on a different topic within the game:
There is a section in Chapter 8: Adventuring --> Movement --> Activity While Traveling --> Other Activities which says this:
"Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger. These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats."
You sort of know what is meant by this and it's fine, but the way that this is worded in this context makes it seem like there is a rule that involves making some sort of group check to notice threats as related to the surprise mechanic -- as if the entire group would be surprised or not surprised. However, as we know, surprise is determined individually -- some characters can be surprised while others might notice the threat and are not surprised. This is another example where it appears that this probably worked differently at some point along the way during playtesting before the initial 5e release and not everything throughout the game was properly cleaned up to reflect the final decision about how the surprise mechanic would work for 5e. That makes the above bit of text from Chapter 8 "an error", or the terms involved were used "erroneously". The context of that text appears to refer back to a rule that doesn't exist.
Ultimately, the DM needs to figure these sorts of things out and make the best rulings that he can for his game.
This makes no sense. It's precisely because we're dealing with an AoE mechanic that the attack target cannot be the spell target. The target of an AoE is the point of origin. Nothing else can possibly be targeted anyway in this case because the range of the spell is "self", and the spell target must be within range.
What does picking and choosing have to do with anything? It's not as if this is some sort of negotiation. We read the rules and we follow them all.
That happens to work out that way in this case, but it won't work out that way for most other possible AoEs that could have been specified. If the spell created an AoE more like how Fireball creates it and the spell had said that the spellcaster makes an attack against a creature "within" that particular AoE, then that wouldn't match up well at all to the idea that it's also some sort of range for the attack.
In this exact case, if you want to think of "within 5 feet of you" as also being some sort of range for the attack (and we'll just ignore for now how wielding a reach weapon would complicate that) then that's probably fine. But that would have nothing to do with the range of the spell and it would have nothing to do with the target of the spell.
Wow. Are you serious with this!?? I literally JUST posted the exact quote from the developers. Maybe you missed it. Let's go ahead and post it again:
"in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything we have some spells that actually appeared in an earlier DnD book (Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide) that now reappear and their range changed and that change has naturally caused some questions. Their ranges originally were that simple X ft meaning it could have the point of origin of the spell [...] over there. So these spells were spells like Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade which when you then read them you see: I'm actually making a weapon attack with these spells and these were actually unusual spells when we wrote them because we had not yet created at that point spells that incorporated into themselves an attack. We had spells like the Paladin's smite spells in the PHB that enhanced attacks but did not include within them the weapon attack itself. Here we experimented with that and to be totally frank the original range entries were wrong [...]
we were looking at the spells and realized these range entries are simply wrong because like Burning Hands like Color Spray like Lightning Bolt you swinging your weapon can never originate any farther away than yourself. Saying range X feet was simply an error and so we fixed it."
This developer comment is related to the errata for this spell that constantly gets ignored in this thread.
How about YOU don't get to make up what the developers said?
Chain Lightning is a totally different type of spell -- it's not even an AoE spell. The spell directly targets a creature or object "within range". Then, we have this: "Three bolts then leap from that target to as many as three other targets, each of which must be within 30 feet of the first target." A whole new source is created here, so you can't use the initial range which is defined with respect to the original source of the spell. This whole mechanism is explicitly described by the spell, creating a specific exception to the targeting rules. But again, this is not even an AoE spell, so discussions about targeting within an AoE do not even apply here.
Lightning Lure explicitly says the wrong thing. It's using the term "target" in a context that refers back to a general rule that doesn't exist.
If you were to take that sentence totally out of context, the text which says "The target must succeed on a Strength saving throw . . ." would have no meaning. Target? What target? What was the target? There would be no way to know. The spell isn't actually telling you. It's not creating any sort of explicit specific exception. It's just a term that has no meaning out of context. The only reason why we think that we know what it's talking about is because it was used in context with the rest of the spell description. We still have to make the leap though, and the only way to do that is to look up the rule for targeting for AoE spells and find the rule that specifies that all creatures which are affected by an AoE are targets of the spell. Then, we can come back to the spell description and match up the "creature" that was mentioned in the previous sentence with the "target" that is mentioned in this sentence and conclude that these are referring to the same thing based on the general rule for spellcasting that we found.
The only problem is . . . there is no such general rule. So, the term "target" in this context refers to absolutely nothing, since the creature that was mentioned cannot be the target. This is an error in the spell description.
That's not how English works. United States of America, State of The Union, City of Bridges, 4th of July, Bachelor of Science, Wheel of Fortune, Maid of Honor, Walk of Shame, and so on.
The first word is the thing. The rest is just descriptive. You are talking about a city, not a bridge. You are talking about a maid, not honor. You are talking about a wheel, not fortune. It's a singular noun where the first word is the thing. The thing is what needs to be specified.
What you've just quoted is not a rule. That's a snippet of a spell description. I disagree with you about what it means and about how the spell works, and the explanation has already been given several times.
Um, the rule has been directly quoted several times now: