The meta perspective for "willingly" is did the player controlling the creature decide to do it or did the game make them do it. It has nothing to do with the creature's mental state and all to do with whether it was a player decision or not.
That's the problem I pointed out. Does it make sense that the spell has meta world detection for consideration of the trigger for damage?
Does a rogue know what advantage is? That’s a trigger for sneak attack.
So Yes, game mechanics can require meta knowledge because the game is entirely meta. It is an abstraction.
The rogue does not need to detect the metagame because advantage has in game impacts. It represents a state where a creature is vulnerable to attack. That's different from a spell which can somehow detect the metagame states.
There's question on whether it triggers the thunder damage right away, but even if it doesn't it's active on their next turn.
Well, the entire post seemed to boil down to, "if you ignore the objections, there are no objections", so I may have glossed over the part where you changed what your proposed 'combo' actually did
For the record, I would not allow it at my table. I think booming blade is utter ballz for a few reasons, and one of them is how badly it was written. This is just another example
If you want to make an opportunity attack with a weapon, make an opportunity attack with a weapon. Trying to back-door a spell and a weapon attack at the same time doesn't fly with me, and is completely against the spirit of Warcaster, even if you try to contort a RAW argument for it:
When a hostile creature's movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature.
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Well, the entire post seemed to boil down to, "if you ignore the objections, there are no objections", so I may have glossed over the part where you changed what your proposed 'combo' actually did
For the record, I would not allow it at my table. I think booming blade is utter ballz for a few reasons, and one of them is how badly it was written. This is just another example
If you want to make an opportunity attack with a weapon, make an opportunity attack with a weapon. Trying to back-door a spell and a weapon attack at the same time doesn't fly with me, and is completely against the spirit of Warcaster, even if you try to contort a RAW argument for it:
When a hostile creature's movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature.
I don't see that as an issue with that since the spell has a weapon attack as part of the casting, so doing both is inherent to the spell. It's no less underhanded than casting it normally since it uses your action to do a weapon attack and cast a spell.
Well, the entire post seemed to boil down to, "if you ignore the objections, there are no objections", so I may have glossed over the part where you changed what your proposed 'combo' actually did
For the record, I would not allow it at my table. I think booming blade is utter ballz for a few reasons, and one of them is how badly it was written. This is just another example
If you want to make an opportunity attack with a weapon, make an opportunity attack with a weapon. Trying to back-door a spell and a weapon attack at the same time doesn't fly with me, and is completely against the spirit of Warcaster, even if you try to contort a RAW argument for it:
When a hostile creature's movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature.
I don't see that as an issue with that since the spell has a weapon attack as part of the casting, so doing both is inherent to the spell. It's no less underhanded than casting it normally since it uses your action to do a weapon attack and cast a spell.
As others have said, booming blade doesn't involve casting a spell AT a creature; you're casting it on yourself as you make a melee attack
The muddled description of the spell allows for an argument that the melee attack is just some elaborate SM component, rather than the whole point of the thing
Basically they wanted it to work like a smite while not costing your bonus action, but they made a complete hash of it
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
As others have said, booming blade doesn't involve casting a spell AT a creature; you're casting it on yourself as you make a melee attack
The muddled description of the spell allows for an argument that the melee attack is just some elaborate SM component, rather than the whole point of the thing
Basically they wanted it to work like a smite while not costing your bonus action, but they made a complete hash of it
I've listened to those arguments. The biggest problem with those arguments is the spell only affects the attack target. So there's no one else for the spell to target but the attack target.
The way it works otherwise doesn't seem complicated or unbalanced. The bonus damage is small in comparison and there aren't many classes who can outclass spell damage with weapon attacks. Also, smite can also be used for oppertunity... and it can be used without war caster because it's not a spell.
Also, smite can also be used for oppertunity... and it can be used without war caster because it's not a spell.
There are multiple smite spells in the game
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You may or may not agree with Jeremy Crawford's explanation, but he clearly states the intent behind changing the spell's range to Self (5 ft radius), the importance of reading the spell entry to understand who the target is, and the discussion about the War Caster feat.
(emphasis mine)
timestamp: the reason why some of these spells have this self parentheses range is we are signalling to the reader this point of origin cannot move
timestamp: 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[...]
timestamp: 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. So now they have a range of self with a parentheses 5 ft radius and then inside the spell you read: okay you brandish the weapon you used as a part of the spell casting and you target somebody within this radius [...]
timestamp: Question: How does this interact with metamagic specifically twinning of spells. Answer: This does make the spell ineligible for being twinned because a twin spell does not allow you to twin a spell with a range of Self. Because these ranges have the word Self in them they are not twinnable and that's by design. Honestly these never were meant to be twinnable because again their range was was actually always incorrect [...]
timestamp: people also have wondered how did these interact with War Caster. A feat that allows you to make an opportunity attack with a spell as long as you target only one thing with that opportunity attack. And so then the question is "Can you use booming blade with its new range of self parentheses to make that opportunity attack as defined by War Caster?". The answer is yes and the reason why it goes back to what I was saying about our rules on Range where you'll notice that as soon as we get to the Self parentheses part we don't talk about you targeting yourself because spells in this category you have to look at the spell to see what exactly are you targeting because all Self parentheses tells us some magic is extending out from me [and] we'll see who are, what it's targeting, and in the case of Booming Blade who or what's being targeted is the person you attack with it [...]
The one I was thinking of is the divine smite ability since it seems similar to booming blade by tacking radiant damage onto the melee attack. I thought that's what you meant by smite.
2. Can booming blade be used with warcaster for an opportunity attack? This is the debated topic, but it seems like the answer is yes because booming blade requires you to make a melee attack on a creature within range, which satisfies the condition that the spell must be cast "at" a creature.
This is an incorrect interpretation of Booming Blade and there is an incredibly important distinction to be made here when attempting to play within the rules as written.
Once again, it is important to reiterate here that Booming Blade was officially changed via errata in 2020. This becomes extremely relevant here. Previously, the spell was written with a parameter of Range: 5 feet, and the spell description talked about attacking a creature "within range". This has changed. Now, the spell parameter is Range: self (5-foot-radius), and the spell description now talks about attacking a creature "within 5 feet".
You are NO LONGER attacking a creature within range. You are NOW attacking a creature within the area of effect. This is the detail that is causing the widespread misunderstanding of what is happening with this spell.
Booming Blade is not cast "at" the creature in question and the spell does not target that creature. The spell is cast "at" the spellcaster's location and the effect radiates outward, potentially affecting that creature.
So this is a part of your argument I don't understand. You say the AOE is triggered prior to the melee attack, but what's the effect? It can't be brandishing the weapon, because it says that's part of the casting... but there's no effect on the spell description prior to making the melee attack. So what's the effect in the AOE?
All Area of Effect spells in the game work the same way. From Chapter 10: Spellcasting --> Casting a Spell --> Areas of Effect:
Spells such as burning hands and cone of cold cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.
A spell's description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere. Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how you position its point of origin. Typically, a point of origin is a point in space, but some spells have an area whose origin is a creature or an object.
A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover.
The spell creates the area of effect, which either affects creatures within the area right away, or it conditionally affects creatures within the area if and when the qualifying circumstances occur. The area of effect is there even if it doesn't do anything right away. Examples of AOE spells which take effect immediately include Burning Hands and Fireball. Examples of AOE spells which take effect conditionally are Antimagic Field and Moonbeam.
Booming Blade's effect actually takes place immediately since the AOE is created during spellcasting and the attack also occurs during spellcasting. It's all happening at roughly the same time. A sphere is created within which a creature might be immediately hit by the attack described in the spell description. Whether or not the AOE actually affects the creature is conditional though, even though it is resolved immediately.
Stating that someone's interpretation is incorrect because you arbitrarily decide that some of the examples contained in RAW are "erroneous" in your opinion and then state someone else is wrong because they don't go along with your arbitrary revisions of RAW to match your preferred interpretation is just a logical fallacy. Both interpretations are possible for what the word "target" means within 5e.
No. The logical fallacy is cherry-picking a couple of unrelated rules which make loose reference to the targeting concept or a small handful of spells which use the word target in a sloppy way and clinging to those few examples and decrying that somehow THAT is the RAW for the entire game concept instead of paying any attention whatsoever to the entire chapter which details the game's general rules for Spellcasting. Specifically, the sections on Range, Targets and Areas of Effect along with hundreds of spell descriptions paint a decently clear picture of what is the intended use for the term "target" in the game. Spells target either creatures or objects or the point of origin for an Area of Effect unless explicitly written otherwise in a specific vs general exception.
And what "arbitrary revisions" of RAW are you even talking about? That was uncalled for and you should apologize. In this forum I never revise RAW. I quote it and I explain it.
Booming Blade has a different description in its spell entry when you compare with other AoE spells. In my opinion, the AoE is not created if you don't hit the target. That's all I'm trying to say . . .
In fact, what's the affected area really? The creature or your surroundings? It seems to be only the creature:
The AoE actually is created. The entire surroundings are affected. It's just that the "E" might not be created. Whether or not the effect actually affects the creature is conditional upon hitting that creature with the specific weapon.
Again, we KNOW that this is how it works because of the very specific notation that is used in the spell parameters. The spell parameters that were deliberately changed via errata. These parameters are not an afterthought or an oversight. They were deliberately changed TO this notation. The range is self. The area of effect is a sphere with a 5-foot radius. It's in the spell parameters. The description then just describes what is happening and which dice need to be rolled and why.
The main argument is that booming blade targets self, not the creature. This is based on the range which is Self (5-foot radius). I find this is not correct.
You can find that all you want but you'd be wrong. The notation Range: Self (5-foot-radius) has only one possible meaning. The target is at the spellcaster's location (or is the spellcaster himself) and the Area of Effect is a 5-foot radius sphere. Any argument of that fact is wrong.
I don't think it matters because it doesn't seem booming blade actually has an AOE.
And yet, Range: self (5-foot-radius). Again, the game designers deliberately changed the spell TO this notation via errata in 2020. This notation isn't some sort of accident.
Given only one creature is affected by the spell, it seems quite clear that the spell is single targeted at the creature being attacked.
Nope. It's an AoE spell. Range: self (5-foot-radius). It just so happens that a creature within the area of effect will only suffer any affects from this spell if it is struck by an immediate attack. So, it's not a very powerful AoE. Yeah, it's a cantrip. It's not supposed to be very powerful.
The range describes self being the center point of the spell and 5ft being the potential range of the spell's effect, which is to sheath a creature with booming energy.
No, no, no. This is a complete misunderstanding of how AoE spells work. The size of the AoE does not describe the thing that gets attached to the creature afterwards. The AoE is created right away, and creatures WITHIN the AoE might be affected in the manner described by the spell description. The sheath of booming energy has nothing to do with the Area of Effect. It is THE effect which might occur WITHIN the Area.
If we assume the target of the spell is self, then we have the absurdity that the target of the spell is not at all affected by the spell effect upon success. What other example of a spell is there where the spell target isn't affected by the effect of a spell?
What are you talking about? There are tons of Range: self spells that target the actual spellcaster. And in those cases the spellcaster may or may not be affected. For example, Burning Hands targets the actual spellcaster. The flames shoot right out of his hands. In that case, however, the spellcaster is not within the resulting AoE because that is the default rule for cone-shaped AoEs.
This doesn't matter for Booming Blade though since the Spellcaster is not the target of the spell in this case. The spell targets a point in space where the weapon was brandished, which is at the spellcaster's location, but is not the spellcaster himself.
However, the spellcaster is indeed in the AoE. If the DM allows a PC to attack himself then the spellcaster could actually suffer the effects of the Booming Blade spell.
----------
Ok, this is getting long unfortunately so I'll end this one here and respond to the more recent posts separately.
I want to leave you all with this thought here. The game designers were simply trying to create an AoE spell that does not rely on the saving throw mechanic like all of the dozens of other spells that are all similar to each other in that regard. Instead of allowing the affected creature to make a DEX save, they are simply using the attack roll mechanic instead. So, the chance of success for the creature to suffer no ill effects is probably similar to having to make a DEX save, but perhaps slightly different depending on the exact stats involved. But it's a similar concept. Plus, the attacker gets to roll the dice in this case instead of the creature. But at the end of the day, it's just another AoE spell that may or may not affect a creature.
"Self" targets the caster, "Self (Xft radius/cone/etc.)" targets an area or creatures in an area defined by the phrase in parenthesis and an origin of the caster.
This poster definitely gets the general idea of how the Booming Blade spell works. Let me just correct a few details:
Actually, the notation of Range: self (area) CAN target the spellcaster himself OR it can target the spellcaster's location. It never targets "an area", and it definitely never targets creatures in the area. The creatures are affected, not targeted. The target is the point of origin:
A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin.
Debate here has focused on whether booming blade works with War Caster. But if we take for granted that it does, there seem to be no other objections to the combo.
This seems like an odd statement. Why would we take such a thing for granted? Especially when, in fact, Booming Blade does not work with War Caster.
. . . So there's no one else for the spell to target but the attack target.
Doh. The spell doesn't target any creatures. It targets a point in space at the spellcaster's location. It's an AoE spell, as specified by the spell parameters "Range: self (5-foot-radius)"
And so then the question is "Can you use booming blade with its new range of self parentheses to make that opportunity attack as defined by War Caster?". The answer is yes and the reason why it goes back to what I was saying about our rules on Range where you'll notice that as soon as we get to the Self parentheses part we don't talk about you targeting yourself because spells in this category you have to look at the spell to see what exactly are you targeting because all Self parentheses tells us some magic is extending out from me [and] we'll see who are, what it's targeting, and in the case of Booming Blade who or what's being targeted is the person you attack with it [...]
Yes, it's unfortunate that JC does make comments like this once in a while when it comes to the concept of targeting. He really needs to just go back and read his own rules sometimes. Despite what he says, AoE spells do not target the creatures within the area. It doesn't take long to find dozens of examples where he is just straight-up wrong on some of his answers which have clear correct answers (not necessarily this topic, I mean on rules topics in general) and there are also dozens of examples where he probably knows that there are inconsistencies and actual errors within the rules and instead of ever admitting that there are any errors he very consistently doubles down on those errors very stubbornly. He is doing one or the other of those things here with this answer.
----------
Ok, well, I'm caught up now. I hope some of this was helpful to some.
What are you talking about? There are tons of Range: self spells that target the actual spellcaster. And in those cases the spellcaster may or may not be affected. For example, Burning Hands targets the actual spellcaster. The flames shoot right out of his hands. In that case, however, the spellcaster is not within the resulting AoE because that is the default rule for cone-shaped AoEs.
A better example might be something like aura of vitality, which has a range of Self (30 ft) and allows the caster to do stuff within that 30 ft
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
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.
Does booming blade tells you it targets an object? No
Does booming blade tells you it targets a creature? Yes, it tells you brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn.
It clearly identify the target in the next sentence after telling you it affect one creature within 5 feet of you and the target of booming blade becomes sheathed in booming energy.
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.
Now having Range Self (5-foot radius) indicate that the origin point of the booming blade's effect must be you.
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range, expressed in feet, booming blade is expressed as 5-foot radius. This is indicated in the spell's effect when making a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. Even if you had a reach weapon, it would have to be within 5 feet of you.
Targets: If a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can choose yourself, unless the creature must be hostile or specifically a creature other than you. If you are in the area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself.
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic, includes area of effect.
You can even target yourself with booming blade where an identical range spell like Sword burst you can't.
Even if you had a reach weapon, it would have to be within 5 feet of you.
Which is another example of how goofy the wording on booming blade is
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I think David42 said it pretty well: Arguing over what constitutes a target is difficult at best when target is clearly used as both the point of origin and a creature affected by a spell.
Yes, it's frustrating because the game itself is not written perfectly and suffers from some inconsistencies on this concept. If you read through all of the game materials it is clear that the concept of targeting is supposed to mean something specific. Nearly all of the general rules and spell descriptions are written with this in mind. Then, unfortunately there are a few places sprinkled around where the term is used in a different way and people just can't seem to get past that. It's true that I can't argue that those bits of text don't exist because they do. Again, it's unfortunate. Just read through all of the dozens upon dozens and dozens of spell descriptions which clearly go out of their way to NOT refer to affected creatures as targets. All of that effort is wasted because there was apparently one author on the team that didn't understand the distinction. That's obviously speculation as to why it happened but it's somewhat obvious when you just read through all of the game materials.
In this case, the Booming Blade spell is correctly using the term "target" to refer to the target of the attack, which is part of what is going on to resolve the spell. This isn't the target of the spell, it's the target of the attack that is part of the spell effect.
It does though. It is in the spell parameters. Range: self (area). This indicates that the spell targets the spellcaster or the spellcaster's location. In this case, the description confirms that it's not the spellcaster, it is the point in space where the brandishing occurs -- at the spellcaster's location.
Does booming blade tells you it targets a creature? Yes, it tells you brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you.
the target of booming blade becomes sheathed in booming energy.
No, it doesn't say that. It says that a creature is targeted by an attack. The effect from the AoE is conditional upon a successful attack roll instead of typical AoE spells which might be conditional on a saving throw failure.
It never says that the target of booming blade is affected. It says that the the target of the attack is affected.
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range, expressed in feet, booming blade is expressed as 5-foot radius. This is indicated in the spell's effect when making a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. Even if you had a reach weapon, it would have to be within 5 feet of you.
This is WRONG. I'm surprised at you for this. The RANGE of booming blade is NOT a 5-foot-radius. This spell was deliberately changed via errata in 2020. The spell parameter is now: range: self (5-foot-radius). The "5-foot-radius" refers to the size and shape of an AREA. It has NOTHING to do with the range.
Indeed, the target of a spell must be within the spell's range. The range of the spell is "self".
Remember the rules for AoE spells though -- a creature CAN be affected OUTSIDE of the spell's RANGE . . . IF and only if the AREA extends outside of the range. For example, you can cast Fireball and it can affect a creature that is 160 feet away from you. The RANGE of the fireball spell is 150 feet. But, the AREA that it creates is a 20-foot radius, which CAN extend beyond the outer edge for the range of the spell. The point of origin (the target of the spell) must be within 150 feet, and then creatures within the area of effect are affected by it.
For booming blade, the range is self. The area of effect radiates outward in straight lines up to 5 feet away. A creature within that area can be affected, even though they are outside of the range of the spell, because they are within the spell's AoE.
You simply cannot wish away the spell's range (area) parameters. Those parameters TELL YOU what type of spell it is.
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic, includes area of effect.
No. This statement from Chapter 10 is not talking about AoE spells except for its origin point. When talking about targeting creatures, it is talking about typical spells like Sacred Flame or Magic Missile which target creatures directly. AoE spells are covered further down in that paragraph:
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
As much as people, including the lead developer, might want Booming Blade to work with War Caster, by RAW it simply does not. The spell is not cast at a creature. The spell's range (area) parameters are absolutely definitive on that detail.
Yeah, it is impossible to get past what is written in the rules when discussing RAW.
It is in no way constructive to make an argument around rules that needs to strike any part of those rules.
[Redacted]
As an example, the rule for saving throws was quoted earlier:
"Many spells specify that a target can make a saving throw to avoid some or all of a spell's effects."
This is a rule about saving throws in spellcasting. It happens to make a sloppy reference to "a target". Some interpret this to mean that this must mean that area of effect spells must be targeting the affected creatures. In fact, it's more accurate to view this sentence as referring to spells that actually target creatures and then the rule for saving throws then forgets to mention that AoE spells might also call for a saving throw.
Again, it's sloppy. And most importantly, this is a rule about saving throws. This is not somehow the rules as written for the general game concept of targeting throughout the entire game. The entire Spellcasting chapter describes what targeting means quite well. We should ignore all of that and cling to a rule about saving throws to determine what the rule for targeting is throughout the whole game? [Redacted]
Again, you are not contributing to the conversation when you throw out parts of the rule book you just don't like. I think I'm done here. This question is resolved. Both the "willingness" bit and also whether "target" actually means both of the things that the rules use it for.
I have contributed by far the most to this conversation. If you are done here then that's fine. I will make sure that the correct information remains front and center and at some point I'm sure that a mod will come along and deem that the conversation has run its course. But making blanket statements that someone is not contributing when that is clearly false just completely undermines your credibility. Try to stick to the topic, please.
And yet, Range: self (5-foot-radius). Again, the game designers deliberately changed the spell TO this notation via errata in 2020. This notation isn't some sort of accident.
Since it seems you're uninterested in watching the video provided by Plaguescarred where JC (the one who wrote this errata) explain what it means, I'll have to explain it. He says, although most of the time range tells you the spell target, the self (x- foot y) is a special case where it does not necessarily describe the target. With that range, you have to look at what the spell does and how it affects creatures or objects.
Concerning booming blade specifically, JC explains that it was changed because the old range was wrong which allowed the spell to be twin spelled before. This was unintended, which is why they errataed it. Because it has self in it it cannot be twinned, but it still requires looking at the description, rather than the range, to determine the intended targets of the spell. Clearly the intended target is the attack target. No one else is even affected by the spell.
JC explains that this means booming blade does work with war caster. Now if you want to continue arguing, just recognize you're essentially trying to say you know more about how the spell works than the guy who wrote it.
Since it seems you're uninterested in watching the video provided by Plaguescarred where JC (the one who wrote this errata) explain what it means, I'll have to explain it. He says, although most of the time range tells you the spell target, the self (x- foot y) is a special case where it does not necessarily describe the target. With that range, you have to look at what the spell does and how it affects creatures or objects.
Concerning booming blade specifically, JC explains that it was changed because the old range was wrong which allowed the spell to be twin spelled before. This was unintended, which is why they errataed it. Because it has self in it it cannot be twinned, but it still requires looking at the description, rather than the range, to determine the intended targets of the spell. Clearly the intended target is the attack target. No one else is even affected by the spell.
JC explains that this means booming blade does work with war caster. Now if you want to continue arguing, just recognize you're essentially trying to say you know more about how the spell works than the guy who wrote it.
Yes I have watched that video and if you were paying attention I have already addressed those comments. Now you have completely misunderstood his explanation.
In fact, the target of a spell must always be within range. What he is saying is that when the range is "self", you do not automatically know if the spellcaster is being targeted or if the target is at the spellcaster's location -- for that you need to refer to the spell description.
He says quite clearly that the reason why the old version of Booming Blade was wrong is because the spell is NOT being cast "over there". The magical spell effect initiates from the spellcaster's location and then you attack in any direction from "here". Whether or not the spell was twinnable was NOT the main motivation for changing the range of the spell.
The spell description will only tell you the intended target for a "range: self" spell as a choice between the spellcaster (in which case sometimes the AoE moves when the spellcaster moves) or the point in space at the spellcaster's location. The intended target is not the attack target -- it literally cannot be since the target of any spell must be within range. The intended affected creature is the attack target.
JC then makes the wrong conclusion that Booming Blade works with War Caster. It does not. I don't know if he wrote the spell or if someone else wrote it. Either way, he is drawing the wrong conclusion, as he often does. Just peruse this Forum for a brief while to find dozens of examples of him drawing the wrong conclusion about a rule. It's not an uncommon occurrence and this is well known.
In fact, the target of a spell must always be within range. What he is saying is that when the range is "self", you do not automatically know if the spellcaster is being targeted or if the target is at the spellcaster's location -- for that you need to refer to the spell description.
He said that specifically for spell with a range of self. He clearly drew distinction between that and self (x-foot y). In that case, he said self describes the origin of the spell, not the intended target. The intended targets can only be discerned from the spell description in that case because these are unique spells. You need to listen to what he says as a whole, not in parts out of context.
And he seems to imply he did write it. He says "the old range was wrong, I mistake... quite possibly my mistake." But the point I was making is that you're trying to tell us the intent behind the errata for the range... what self (x- foot y) means. Well... he's telling you what he meant by it when he wrote it. How are you gonna say your interpretation is more accurate than the author's?
And yet, Range: self (5-foot-radius). Again, the game designers deliberately changed the spell TO this notation via errata in 2020. This notation isn't some sort of accident.
Since it seems you're uninterested in watching the video provided by Plaguescarred where JC (the one who wrote this errata) explain what it means, I'll have to explain it. He says, although most of the time range tells you the spell target, the self (x- foot y) is a special case where it does not necessarily describe the target. With that range, you have to look at what the spell does and how it affects creatures or objects.
Concerning booming blade specifically, JC explains that it was changed because the old range was wrong which allowed the spell to be twin spelled before. This was unintended, which is why they errataed it. Because it has self in it it cannot be twinned, but it still requires looking at the description, rather than the range, to determine the intended targets of the spell. Clearly the intended target is the attack target. No one else is even affected by the spell.
JC explains that this means booming blade does work with war caster. Now if you want to continue arguing, just recognize you're essentially trying to say you know more about how the spell works than the guy who wrote it.
Yeah, they wrote it badly the first time, then created another set of problems when they "fixed" it
Per JC's interpretation, destructive wave is a valid choice for Warcaster, provided you pick only that one creature to be affected. You could make an argument for spirit guardians too
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The rogue does not need to detect the metagame because advantage has in game impacts. It represents a state where a creature is vulnerable to attack. That's different from a spell which can somehow detect the metagame states.
Well, the entire post seemed to boil down to, "if you ignore the objections, there are no objections", so I may have glossed over the part where you changed what your proposed 'combo' actually did
For the record, I would not allow it at my table. I think booming blade is utter ballz for a few reasons, and one of them is how badly it was written. This is just another example
If you want to make an opportunity attack with a weapon, make an opportunity attack with a weapon. Trying to back-door a spell and a weapon attack at the same time doesn't fly with me, and is completely against the spirit of Warcaster, even if you try to contort a RAW argument for it:
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I don't see that as an issue with that since the spell has a weapon attack as part of the casting, so doing both is inherent to the spell. It's no less underhanded than casting it normally since it uses your action to do a weapon attack and cast a spell.
As others have said, booming blade doesn't involve casting a spell AT a creature; you're casting it on yourself as you make a melee attack
The muddled description of the spell allows for an argument that the melee attack is just some elaborate SM component, rather than the whole point of the thing
Basically they wanted it to work like a smite while not costing your bonus action, but they made a complete hash of it
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I've listened to those arguments. The biggest problem with those arguments is the spell only affects the attack target. So there's no one else for the spell to target but the attack target.
The way it works otherwise doesn't seem complicated or unbalanced. The bonus damage is small in comparison and there aren't many classes who can outclass spell damage with weapon attacks. Also, smite can also be used for oppertunity... and it can be used without war caster because it's not a spell.
There are multiple smite spells in the game
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The video linked by @Plaguescarred is nice.
You may or may not agree with Jeremy Crawford's explanation, but he clearly states the intent behind changing the spell's range to Self (5 ft radius), the importance of reading the spell entry to understand who the target is, and the discussion about the War Caster feat.
(emphasis mine)
timestamp: the reason why some of these spells have this self parentheses range is we are signalling to the reader this point of origin cannot move
timestamp: 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 [...]
timestamp: 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. So now they have a range of self with a parentheses 5 ft radius and then inside the spell you read: okay you brandish the weapon you used as a part of the spell casting and you target somebody within this radius [...]
timestamp: Question: How does this interact with metamagic specifically twinning of spells. Answer: This does make the spell ineligible for being twinned because a twin spell does not allow you to twin a spell with a range of Self. Because these ranges have the word Self in them they are not twinnable and that's by design. Honestly these never were meant to be twinnable because again their range was was actually always incorrect [...]
timestamp: people also have wondered how did these interact with War Caster. A feat that allows you to make an opportunity attack with a spell as long as you target only one thing with that opportunity attack. And so then the question is "Can you use booming blade with its new range of self parentheses to make that opportunity attack as defined by War Caster?". The answer is yes and the reason why it goes back to what I was saying about our rules on Range where you'll notice that as soon as we get to the Self parentheses part we don't talk about you targeting yourself because spells in this category you have to look at the spell to see what exactly are you targeting because all Self parentheses tells us some magic is extending out from me [and] we'll see who are, what it's targeting, and in the case of Booming Blade who or what's being targeted is the person you attack with it [...]
The one I was thinking of is the divine smite ability since it seems similar to booming blade by tacking radiant damage onto the melee attack. I thought that's what you meant by smite.
So I've fallen behind on this discussion and have some catching up to do. There's a lot to unpack here. Let's get started:
This is an incorrect interpretation of Booming Blade and there is an incredibly important distinction to be made here when attempting to play within the rules as written.
Once again, it is important to reiterate here that Booming Blade was officially changed via errata in 2020. This becomes extremely relevant here. Previously, the spell was written with a parameter of Range: 5 feet, and the spell description talked about attacking a creature "within range". This has changed. Now, the spell parameter is Range: self (5-foot-radius), and the spell description now talks about attacking a creature "within 5 feet".
You are NO LONGER attacking a creature within range. You are NOW attacking a creature within the area of effect. This is the detail that is causing the widespread misunderstanding of what is happening with this spell.
Booming Blade is not cast "at" the creature in question and the spell does not target that creature. The spell is cast "at" the spellcaster's location and the effect radiates outward, potentially affecting that creature.
All Area of Effect spells in the game work the same way. From Chapter 10: Spellcasting --> Casting a Spell --> Areas of Effect:
The spell creates the area of effect, which either affects creatures within the area right away, or it conditionally affects creatures within the area if and when the qualifying circumstances occur. The area of effect is there even if it doesn't do anything right away. Examples of AOE spells which take effect immediately include Burning Hands and Fireball. Examples of AOE spells which take effect conditionally are Antimagic Field and Moonbeam.
Booming Blade's effect actually takes place immediately since the AOE is created during spellcasting and the attack also occurs during spellcasting. It's all happening at roughly the same time. A sphere is created within which a creature might be immediately hit by the attack described in the spell description. Whether or not the AOE actually affects the creature is conditional though, even though it is resolved immediately.
No. The logical fallacy is cherry-picking a couple of unrelated rules which make loose reference to the targeting concept or a small handful of spells which use the word target in a sloppy way and clinging to those few examples and decrying that somehow THAT is the RAW for the entire game concept instead of paying any attention whatsoever to the entire chapter which details the game's general rules for Spellcasting. Specifically, the sections on Range, Targets and Areas of Effect along with hundreds of spell descriptions paint a decently clear picture of what is the intended use for the term "target" in the game. Spells target either creatures or objects or the point of origin for an Area of Effect unless explicitly written otherwise in a specific vs general exception.
And what "arbitrary revisions" of RAW are you even talking about? That was uncalled for and you should apologize. In this forum I never revise RAW. I quote it and I explain it.
The AoE actually is created. The entire surroundings are affected. It's just that the "E" might not be created. Whether or not the effect actually affects the creature is conditional upon hitting that creature with the specific weapon.
Again, we KNOW that this is how it works because of the very specific notation that is used in the spell parameters. The spell parameters that were deliberately changed via errata. These parameters are not an afterthought or an oversight. They were deliberately changed TO this notation. The range is self. The area of effect is a sphere with a 5-foot radius. It's in the spell parameters. The description then just describes what is happening and which dice need to be rolled and why.
You can find that all you want but you'd be wrong. The notation Range: Self (5-foot-radius) has only one possible meaning. The target is at the spellcaster's location (or is the spellcaster himself) and the Area of Effect is a 5-foot radius sphere. Any argument of that fact is wrong.
And yet, Range: self (5-foot-radius). Again, the game designers deliberately changed the spell TO this notation via errata in 2020. This notation isn't some sort of accident.
Nope. It's an AoE spell. Range: self (5-foot-radius). It just so happens that a creature within the area of effect will only suffer any affects from this spell if it is struck by an immediate attack. So, it's not a very powerful AoE. Yeah, it's a cantrip. It's not supposed to be very powerful.
No, no, no. This is a complete misunderstanding of how AoE spells work. The size of the AoE does not describe the thing that gets attached to the creature afterwards. The AoE is created right away, and creatures WITHIN the AoE might be affected in the manner described by the spell description. The sheath of booming energy has nothing to do with the Area of Effect. It is THE effect which might occur WITHIN the Area.
What are you talking about? There are tons of Range: self spells that target the actual spellcaster. And in those cases the spellcaster may or may not be affected. For example, Burning Hands targets the actual spellcaster. The flames shoot right out of his hands. In that case, however, the spellcaster is not within the resulting AoE because that is the default rule for cone-shaped AoEs.
This doesn't matter for Booming Blade though since the Spellcaster is not the target of the spell in this case. The spell targets a point in space where the weapon was brandished, which is at the spellcaster's location, but is not the spellcaster himself.
However, the spellcaster is indeed in the AoE. If the DM allows a PC to attack himself then the spellcaster could actually suffer the effects of the Booming Blade spell.
----------
Ok, this is getting long unfortunately so I'll end this one here and respond to the more recent posts separately.
I want to leave you all with this thought here. The game designers were simply trying to create an AoE spell that does not rely on the saving throw mechanic like all of the dozens of other spells that are all similar to each other in that regard. Instead of allowing the affected creature to make a DEX save, they are simply using the attack roll mechanic instead. So, the chance of success for the creature to suffer no ill effects is probably similar to having to make a DEX save, but perhaps slightly different depending on the exact stats involved. But it's a similar concept. Plus, the attacker gets to roll the dice in this case instead of the creature. But at the end of the day, it's just another AoE spell that may or may not affect a creature.
This poster definitely gets the general idea of how the Booming Blade spell works. Let me just correct a few details:
Actually, the notation of Range: self (area) CAN target the spellcaster himself OR it can target the spellcaster's location. It never targets "an area", and it definitely never targets creatures in the area. The creatures are affected, not targeted. The target is the point of origin:
No. Booming Blade is an AoE spell that targets a point of origin. The spell effect may affect a creature within the AoE.
No, it's neither of these. The target is the point of origin for the AoE:
This seems like an odd statement. Why would we take such a thing for granted? Especially when, in fact, Booming Blade does not work with War Caster.
YES! Good usage of "affects" there! And why is this a problem? That's just what the spell does.
Doh. The spell doesn't target any creatures. It targets a point in space at the spellcaster's location. It's an AoE spell, as specified by the spell parameters "Range: self (5-foot-radius)"
Yes, it's unfortunate that JC does make comments like this once in a while when it comes to the concept of targeting. He really needs to just go back and read his own rules sometimes. Despite what he says, AoE spells do not target the creatures within the area. It doesn't take long to find dozens of examples where he is just straight-up wrong on some of his answers which have clear correct answers (not necessarily this topic, I mean on rules topics in general) and there are also dozens of examples where he probably knows that there are inconsistencies and actual errors within the rules and instead of ever admitting that there are any errors he very consistently doubles down on those errors very stubbornly. He is doing one or the other of those things here with this answer.
----------
Ok, well, I'm caught up now. I hope some of this was helpful to some.
A better example might be something like aura of vitality, which has a range of Self (30 ft) and allows the caster to do stuff within that 30 ft
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Does booming blade tells you it targets an object? No
Does booming blade tells you it targets a point? No
Does booming blade tells you it targets a creature? Yes, it tells you brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn.
It clearly identify the target in the next sentence after telling you it affect one creature within 5 feet of you and the target of booming blade becomes sheathed in booming energy.
Now having Range Self (5-foot radius) indicate that the origin point of the booming blade's effect must be you.
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range, expressed in feet, booming blade is expressed as 5-foot radius. This is indicated in the spell's effect when making a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. Even if you had a reach weapon, it would have to be within 5 feet of you.
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic, includes area of effect.
You can even target yourself with booming blade where an identical range spell like Sword burst you can't.
Which is another example of how goofy the wording on booming blade is
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yes, it's frustrating because the game itself is not written perfectly and suffers from some inconsistencies on this concept. If you read through all of the game materials it is clear that the concept of targeting is supposed to mean something specific. Nearly all of the general rules and spell descriptions are written with this in mind. Then, unfortunately there are a few places sprinkled around where the term is used in a different way and people just can't seem to get past that. It's true that I can't argue that those bits of text don't exist because they do. Again, it's unfortunate. Just read through all of the dozens upon dozens and dozens of spell descriptions which clearly go out of their way to NOT refer to affected creatures as targets. All of that effort is wasted because there was apparently one author on the team that didn't understand the distinction. That's obviously speculation as to why it happened but it's somewhat obvious when you just read through all of the game materials.
In this case, the Booming Blade spell is correctly using the term "target" to refer to the target of the attack, which is part of what is going on to resolve the spell. This isn't the target of the spell, it's the target of the attack that is part of the spell effect.
It does though. It is in the spell parameters. Range: self (area). This indicates that the spell targets the spellcaster or the spellcaster's location. In this case, the description confirms that it's not the spellcaster, it is the point in space where the brandishing occurs -- at the spellcaster's location.
No, it doesn't say that. It says that a creature is targeted by an attack. The effect from the AoE is conditional upon a successful attack roll instead of typical AoE spells which might be conditional on a saving throw failure.
It never says that the target of booming blade is affected. It says that the the target of the attack is affected.
This is WRONG. I'm surprised at you for this. The RANGE of booming blade is NOT a 5-foot-radius. This spell was deliberately changed via errata in 2020. The spell parameter is now: range: self (5-foot-radius). The "5-foot-radius" refers to the size and shape of an AREA. It has NOTHING to do with the range.
Indeed, the target of a spell must be within the spell's range. The range of the spell is "self".
Remember the rules for AoE spells though -- a creature CAN be affected OUTSIDE of the spell's RANGE . . . IF and only if the AREA extends outside of the range. For example, you can cast Fireball and it can affect a creature that is 160 feet away from you. The RANGE of the fireball spell is 150 feet. But, the AREA that it creates is a 20-foot radius, which CAN extend beyond the outer edge for the range of the spell. The point of origin (the target of the spell) must be within 150 feet, and then creatures within the area of effect are affected by it.
For booming blade, the range is self. The area of effect radiates outward in straight lines up to 5 feet away. A creature within that area can be affected, even though they are outside of the range of the spell, because they are within the spell's AoE.
You simply cannot wish away the spell's range (area) parameters. Those parameters TELL YOU what type of spell it is.
No. This statement from Chapter 10 is not talking about AoE spells except for its origin point. When talking about targeting creatures, it is talking about typical spells like Sacred Flame or Magic Missile which target creatures directly. AoE spells are covered further down in that paragraph:
As much as people, including the lead developer, might want Booming Blade to work with War Caster, by RAW it simply does not. The spell is not cast at a creature. The spell's range (area) parameters are absolutely definitive on that detail.
[Redacted]
As an example, the rule for saving throws was quoted earlier:
"Many spells specify that a target can make a saving throw to avoid some or all of a spell's effects."
This is a rule about saving throws in spellcasting. It happens to make a sloppy reference to "a target". Some interpret this to mean that this must mean that area of effect spells must be targeting the affected creatures. In fact, it's more accurate to view this sentence as referring to spells that actually target creatures and then the rule for saving throws then forgets to mention that AoE spells might also call for a saving throw.
Again, it's sloppy. And most importantly, this is a rule about saving throws. This is not somehow the rules as written for the general game concept of targeting throughout the entire game. The entire Spellcasting chapter describes what targeting means quite well. We should ignore all of that and cling to a rule about saving throws to determine what the rule for targeting is throughout the whole game? [Redacted]
I have contributed by far the most to this conversation. If you are done here then that's fine. I will make sure that the correct information remains front and center and at some point I'm sure that a mod will come along and deem that the conversation has run its course. But making blanket statements that someone is not contributing when that is clearly false just completely undermines your credibility. Try to stick to the topic, please.
Since it seems you're uninterested in watching the video provided by Plaguescarred where JC (the one who wrote this errata) explain what it means, I'll have to explain it. He says, although most of the time range tells you the spell target, the self (x- foot y) is a special case where it does not necessarily describe the target. With that range, you have to look at what the spell does and how it affects creatures or objects.
Concerning booming blade specifically, JC explains that it was changed because the old range was wrong which allowed the spell to be twin spelled before. This was unintended, which is why they errataed it. Because it has self in it it cannot be twinned, but it still requires looking at the description, rather than the range, to determine the intended targets of the spell. Clearly the intended target is the attack target. No one else is even affected by the spell.
JC explains that this means booming blade does work with war caster. Now if you want to continue arguing, just recognize you're essentially trying to say you know more about how the spell works than the guy who wrote it.
Yes I have watched that video and if you were paying attention I have already addressed those comments. Now you have completely misunderstood his explanation.
In fact, the target of a spell must always be within range. What he is saying is that when the range is "self", you do not automatically know if the spellcaster is being targeted or if the target is at the spellcaster's location -- for that you need to refer to the spell description.
He says quite clearly that the reason why the old version of Booming Blade was wrong is because the spell is NOT being cast "over there". The magical spell effect initiates from the spellcaster's location and then you attack in any direction from "here". Whether or not the spell was twinnable was NOT the main motivation for changing the range of the spell.
The spell description will only tell you the intended target for a "range: self" spell as a choice between the spellcaster (in which case sometimes the AoE moves when the spellcaster moves) or the point in space at the spellcaster's location. The intended target is not the attack target -- it literally cannot be since the target of any spell must be within range. The intended affected creature is the attack target.
JC then makes the wrong conclusion that Booming Blade works with War Caster. It does not. I don't know if he wrote the spell or if someone else wrote it. Either way, he is drawing the wrong conclusion, as he often does. Just peruse this Forum for a brief while to find dozens of examples of him drawing the wrong conclusion about a rule. It's not an uncommon occurrence and this is well known.
He said that specifically for spell with a range of self. He clearly drew distinction between that and self (x-foot y). In that case, he said self describes the origin of the spell, not the intended target. The intended targets can only be discerned from the spell description in that case because these are unique spells. You need to listen to what he says as a whole, not in parts out of context.
And he seems to imply he did write it. He says "the old range was wrong, I mistake... quite possibly my mistake." But the point I was making is that you're trying to tell us the intent behind the errata for the range... what self (x- foot y) means. Well... he's telling you what he meant by it when he wrote it. How are you gonna say your interpretation is more accurate than the author's?
Yeah, they wrote it badly the first time, then created another set of problems when they "fixed" it
Per JC's interpretation, destructive wave is a valid choice for Warcaster, provided you pick only that one creature to be affected. You could make an argument for spirit guardians too
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)