Sure… what I'm saying is that the first sentence under range is defining the range (imagine that). It's not telling you what the targets are or how to determine the targets… it's telling you that the range is the area where targets must be selected from. In other words… targets for a spell must only be selected by the player from the area within range. That's it.
Ok, yes, this is correct. That's what I've been saying the whole time. Now, when we talk about a range of "self", you just don't have any option for what you can select. The only valid target in that case is the spellcaster himself or the point in space at the spellcaster's location. Otherwise, you are trying to target something outside of the range, which is against the rules.
I'm not sure what you mean by "my shift", I am just telling you what the rules are. In the one that you quoted (and I have also quoted it several times), you pick the target "to be affected by the spell's magic". One of the three options given for that is "a point of origin for an area of effect". So, the point in space is the target for AoE spells, but later on there are other rules that say, depending on the shape of the AoE, the actual origin point's location may or may not be included in the Area of Effect. Those are the rules, I didn't make them up.
I thought it was quite clear. My simple argument is that a target must be affected by the effect of the spell. Therefore, if a creature is not affected by the spell, it cannot be considered as a target for the spell. I had presented two side by side quotes from you, where you both said that it doesn't matter whether the caster is affected by the spell, and also agreeing that the target must be affected by the spell. Do you really not see the conflict? If the caster isn't affected by the magic of booming blade in any case, success or failure, then the caster cannot be a target of the spell. That's according the the target section we've been looking at.
Concerning the range, I've pointed out numerous times the range is not self. It is self (5-foot radius). This means the target can be anywhere within 5 feet of the caster. The target eligibility is not merely limited to the caster alone since self (x-foot y) is quite different from simply self.
I assume you mean the caster is a target if he is a point of origin of the spell. But this is also wrong. There is nothing in the rules that says the spell's point of origin is a target of the spell.
Yes, occasionally the point of origin for an AoE spell can be a creature and when that happens that creature is the target. The main example that we keep coming back to for this would be Burning Hands, where the magic spews forth straight out of the spellcaster's hands. But let's say that for some reason I wanted to target myself with a Fireball spell. I would not be the target in that case because the Fireball spell does not explode from a creature. It explodes from a point in space. I might be at the location of that point in space but I wouldn't be the target. My location would be the target.
The place in the rules which says that the spell's point of origin is a target of the spell is in the rule that you've recently quoted. It is listed as one of the three options for what can be a valid target of a spell:
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 targetscreatures, objects, ora point of origin for an area of effect
I'll put aside the issue of whether affected creatures within an AOE are considered targets (although this seems to be how they are treated). But notice the difference between what you said and what is in the PHB. You said "when that happens that creature is the target." There is nothing that says the point of origin is de facto the spell's target. Notice how your reference tells you what can be targeted; a creature, object, or point of origin. It does not say that a point of origin is always the spell's target. We need to look at the description to see if it is.
Furthermore, There is nothing in booming blade, which indicates it affects anyone other than the attack target. Unless you can point out a magical effect that affects the caster of the spell, this spell only targets the attack target.
Correction: The spell only affects the attack target. It only targets the spellcaster's location.
Remember, the Range parameter for this particular spell defines a specific size and shape for an AoE. It also specifies that the range is "self". The only way that this is possible is if the target of the spell is at the spellcaster's location because, by rule, the target must be within range. Now, the AREA for the AoE extends outwards to a radius of 5 feet. The attacked creature must be within this area or else he will be unaffected by the spell. Because it's a cantrip, the creature still has a chance to take no damage. Instead of making a saving throw, he has to be on the good side of an attack roll mechanic. But the end result is a lot like other cantrips -- affected or unaffected (instead of half-affected, like many leveled spells do).
Booming Blade used to be written in such a way that the creature was directly targeted. The spell was changed in 2020 into an AoE spell.
I hope that helps!
And this is where it seems as if you're talking on both sides of your mouth... On the one hand you say "of course the spell affects the caster..." and on the other hand you say "no, it doesn't affect the caster... nor does it need to..." At this point I think the only productive thing is to get you to address my syllogism.
1. PHB chapter 10 under targeting says "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 (described below)."
2. The description of the booming blade spell has magical effects that only affect the attack target. No magical effect affects the caster.
3. Therefore the booming blade spell only targets the attack target.
The conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. Either you disagree with one or more premise, or you accept the conclusion. There is no alternative. Since premise 1 is just quoting the PHB, I presume you will disagree with premise 2. Whatever your contention is, try your best to explain why this 3 step argument fails.
An important consequence is that the affected creatures CANNOT be considered to be targets of the AoE. Otherwise, a creature that is standing 165 feet away and clearly within the Fireball's blast radius would suffer no ill effects from the spell since by rule the target of the Fireball spell cannot be farther away than 150 feet
A fireball, targets a point of origin within a range of 150 feet where the ball of fire erupts. Range is where the effect originate from.
Once it does, "each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."
In other words, targets aren't strictly related to spell's origin, but within it's effect too. For fireball, the target taking fire damage is not the point of origin but creature.
And if as the caster you're in it, you can target yourself too because area of effect target creatures that are affected by the spell's magic.
Targets: If you are in the area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself.
I realize that this post has gotten long and I apologize for that -- a lot of different people have lots of various questions about this topic, so I am just trying to respond to each of those as time permits . . .
I thought it was quite clear. My simple argument is that a target must be affected by the effect of the spell. Therefore, if a creature is not affected by the spell, it cannot be considered as a target for the spell . . . If the caster isn't affected by the magic of booming blade in any case, success or failure, then the caster cannot be a target of the spell. That's according the the target section we've been looking at.
Ah, ok I see now where some of you are going wrong here. What you've described above is not what the Targets section is saying.
The whole point of casting a spell is that you are trying to affect something with that spell's magic. In order to do that, you aim it somewhere when you cast it. That's all that sentence means.
There are three things that can be affected by a spell's magic: Creatures, Objects and Areas. The purpose of an AoE spell is to affect an area.
There are three things which can be targeted to achieve this purpose: Creatures, Objects and "a point of originforan area of effect".
In other words, to affect an area with the spell's magic, you target that area's point of origin. That is the rule.
Once the area is affected by the spell's magic, creatures within that area might also be affected -- in the manner described by the particular spell.
That is why your conclusion that "Therefore, if a creature is not affected by the spell, it cannot be considered as a target for the spell" is incorrect, and why I keep telling you that this doesn't matter for the purposes of determining the target of the spell. Once again, we have Burning Hands: Range: self (15-foot-cone) -- "a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips." and also: "A cone extends in a direction you choose from its point of origin . . . A cone's point of origin is not included in the cone's area of effect, unless you decide otherwise." So, in that case the spellcaster himself is the target but he is not affected by the spell's magic.
Concerning the range, I've pointed out numerous times the range is not self. It is self (5-foot radius). This means the target can be anywhere within 5 feet of the caster. The target eligibility is not merely limited to the caster alone since self (x-foot y) is quite different from simply self.
Ok, this is just flat out wrong. You really are going to need to get past this if you're interested in playing by the rules because the concept of range is vital to spellcasting. The target of a spell must be within range and the range is indicated in the range portion of the "range (area)" parameter. The range gives you the options for the valid targets of your spell. The area describes the size and shape of the area of effect that is created by that spell -- that area of effect affects the area in the manner described.
There is nothing that says the point of origin is de facto the spell's target. Notice how your reference tells you what can be targeted; a creature, object, or point of origin. It does not say that a point of origin is always the spell's target. We need to look at the description to see if it is.
It does say this, if and only if we are talking about an AoE spell. It says that one of your options for your target is "a point of originforan area of effect". For an AoE spell, you are not attempting to affect specifically selected creatures or objects, you are attempting to affect an area, so for those spells the point of origin is the target. Of course, tactically, a spellcaster might attempt to affect an area that happens to have some creatures standing within it, but that's not the same thing with respect to understanding what the spell itself is actually doing.
1. PHB chapter 10 under targeting says "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 (described below)."
2. The description of the booming blade spell has magical effects that only affect the attack target. No magical effect affects the caster.
3. Therefore the booming blade spell only targets the attack target.
. . . try your best to explain why this 3 step argument fails.
Ok, since you're asking, I'll give it a shot. I disagree with the premise and also the conclusion. For all points, remember that "a spell's description" includes its parameters. I've previously quoted that rule.
For point #1, the description tells us that the target is the origin point for an AoE and it tells us that the range is self. The explanation of the spell effect tells us that only one creature can be affected by this particular AoE (remember, it's a cantrip, it's a very weak AoE spell) because in order to be affected by the AoE, the creature must be successfully attacked by the weapon which created the AoE.
For point #2, the magical effect could affect the spellcaster if the spellcaster is the creature being attacked. And yet, again, whether or not the spellcaster is affected by the AoE is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the spellcaster or the spellcaster's location can be the target of the spell. See the Burning Hands example above.
For point #3, the conclusion is incorrect. Booming Blades does not and can not target the attack target. The target of a spell must be within range.
Agreed. Also, if you look at up-to-date spells on the website it doesn't just say "Range", it says "Range/Area". Self (5 ft) means there is a restriction on its targets to be within 5 ft of the caster, NOT that it targets everything in that area or the area itself.
For a moment it seemed like you were on the right track, but this is incorrect. Self (5 ft) means there is a restriction on where the spell can be cast (the target of the spell) and also there is a restriction on its affected creatures to be within 5 ft of the point of origin. Remember, range and area are two different things. One determines valid targets, the other determines what is affected by the area of effect.
Let's quickly address your examples:
Thunderwave does not refer to affected creatures as targets. The target is the spellcaster "sweeps out from you". The spell affects a cube. The origin point of a cube is along one of its faces and is not included in the AoE.
Booming Blade is tricky because the word "target" is used. But this refers to the target of an attack which occurs as part of the spell's effect. That's not the target of the spell. Rules for attack targets are different from the rules for spell targets (Chapter 9 vs Chapter 10).
You are absolutely correct that Fireball targets a point in space. The text also DOES refer to the affected creatures as targets in this case, which is one of about 4 or 5 AoE spells in the game that is written this way out of over 100 AoE spells. This usage of the word is inconsistent with the rules for spellcasting. At best, we could consider this to be a specific vs general exception to the rule.
Sleet Storm does not target the entire area itself. It targets a point in space ("a point you choose within range"). Affected creatures are not referred to as targets by this spell.
Transmute Rock is a cube and all cube AoE spells have a point of origin, which is the target of the spell. Affected creatures are not referred to as targets by this spell.
Slow is a cube and all cube AoE spells have a point of origin, which is the target of the spell. In this case, you select up to 6 creatures to be affected by the AoE. The AoE is filled with a spell effect that "alters time around" the selected creatures. The game refers to this selection process as targeting, which isn't actually the target of the spell, strictly speaking, but it's much more in line with the rules than the blunder that was made with the Fireball spell. In the Fireball spell, the AoE is clearly an indiscriminate effect -- an explosion. In the case of slow, the spellcaster must specifically select which creatures will be affected, so it's understandable to refer to those creatures as targets of that selection process, even though those creatures are not directly affected by the casting of the spell, they are affected by the resulting AoE.
Phantasmal Force is one where the online entry for the spell really shouldn't include the cube in the range parameter -- that's just an error made by whoever transcribed the spell into the online format. If you notice, a lot of hardcopy versions do not include the area directly into the parameter -- this was added later when porting the spells online. This spell targets a creature that is within range directly, it's not an AoE spell. The cube is just the maximum size of the illusion that is created and that cube can be placed anywhere that the creature can perceive, perhaps even a mile or more up in the air or whatever. It doesn't have to be within range and therefore the cube has nothing to do with being the target of the spell.
Steel Wind Strike is just not an AoE spell and it does not use the range (area) notation. The spell directly targets up to 5 creatures within range. The spell effect involves making a "melee spell attack" on each target. Mechanically, this spell is a lot closer to a spell like Magic Missile -- it's just melee instead of ranged.
Antipathy/Sympathy has explicit language that explains what can be targeted. The "area" portion of the "range (area)" parameter is included for those times when you are casting the AoE version of the spell. When you cast the AoE version of the spell, the target is a point in space which creates the origin point for a cube. It uses the language that you "target an area", but we know from the rules for Chapter 10 precisely how this is done for AoE spells -- you target the origin point to create an AoE that fills the area that you are trying to affect with the spell's magic.
Blade Barrier is not a "typical spell" since the size and shape of the AoE are not defined in advance and do not conform to one of the 5 standard shapes. Therefore, the "area" portion of that parameter is left out. But we know that an AoE is created by reading the rest of the description. Let's take a quick look at this rule:
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.
So, in the case of Blade Barrier, you do target a point in space to create the AoE. Also, there is this rule: "Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise." In this case, the description DOES say otherwise, so the entire AoE must be within the range for this particular spell.
the range/area of a spell does not completely determine its targets, but rather serves to place restrictions on or summarize the targets described in the remaining text of the spell.
Nobody ever said that this parameter "determines" the exact targets. But in terms of those restrictions that you speak of, the most fundamental one is that the target of the spell must be within range. So, when a spell directly targets a creature with a range of self, then the spellcaster IS the target. If a spell is an AoE spell with a range of self, the target must be either the spellcaster or the spellcaster's location. Otherwise, you are breaking the rule for the range of a spell.
I will repeat this: If you are to assume the rules are incorrect, then the one that is incorrect should be the one that is inconsistent with all the rest, that's all. If one thing is inconsistent with everything else, that thing is probably the wrong bit and not everything else . . . If one thing is inconsistent with everything else, that thing is probably the wrong bit and not everything else.
I disagree with this. The Targets subsection of the Casting a Spell section of the Spellcasting chapter defines the concept of spell targeting for the game. If other rules and features happen to refer to this concept, it is their job to remain consistent with this general rule, not the other way around.
On that point, the rest of the general rules throughout Chapter 10 that closely interact with the rules for targeting actually are consistent with the Targets subsection, including the rules for Range and the rules for Areas of Effect. Approximately 95 out of 100 AoE spells are written in a manner that is consistent with these general rules.
In other words, targets aren't strictly related to spell's origin, but within it's effect too.
That's just not the general rule for spell targeting though. I understand that the Fireball spell uses that wording, but that is inconsistent with the general rule.
As for the bit about "you can target yourself" -- that line is just incredibly poorly worded. Among other things, "you can" indicates that this is somehow optional. As if you can be standing within the blast radius of your own Fireball spell and decide whether or not you want to be affected by it. That's nonsense. They were attempting to say something else entirely with that line and they completely butchered it.
But beyond that, its because "A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic." If area spells only affect their targets and targets of area spells are only points of origin, area spells ONLY affect their point of origin and do not affect creatures inside the areas at all.
This is incorrect. The whole point of targeting something with a spell is to affect it with the spell's magic. The way that a point in space is affected by the spell's magic is that an area of effect is created there. The area of effect then affects anything that it comes into contact with according to whatever is described by the spell. That's why one of the choices given for targeting is "a point of originforan area of effect". You are trying to create an area that affects creatures in the manner described. The method for doing so is to target the point of origin. You guys are overcomplicating that concept.
Area spells do not only affect their targets because sometimes creatures will be affected by the resulting area of effect. Once created, areas of effect affect creatures, they don't target them. To create the area of effect in the first place you target the point of origin with the spell. That's the effect of the spell -- to create the area of effect. Whether or not there is a creature anywhere in the vicinity is irrelevant to what the spell is actually doing. The spell is creating an area of effect. That's it.
one could likewise argue that since fireball mentions targets when discussing damage, and "The target of a spell must be within the spell’s range" then creatures farther than 150' do not take damage even if the fireball area reaches farther than that.
Yes, exactly! This is why the text of the Fireball spell is erroneous. It's not consistent with the general rules for spellcasting or the 95% of other AoE spell descriptions. It also is not making a clear specific vs general exception to the rules. So the result is that under that interpretation indeed those creatures would be unaffected since they cannot be targeted (targets must be within range). I mean, you could play it that way I guess, but why would you want to? The whole point of the other rule that says "Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise" is so that the effects aren't limited by its range. Otherwise, we're saying that calling those creatures "targets" IS the spell description saying "otherwise" and so those particular spells like Fireball become nerfed along the edges of the range. I would personally rather have Fireball spells work as intended in my games, treating that one word in its description as a typo. But others can do as they wish.
Context is important. I can see why someone trying to prove a point would only consider a sentence at a time though
I totally agree! That is frustrating! That is why for many core game concepts like this one I look at the big picture and factor in all of the many subsections of rules which work together to create the concept, as designed for 5e. When people come along and point out one line of text that is inconsistent with the entirety of the general rule and then claim that that must mean that the rule is something else, it does get exhausting, I totally agree with you there.
Sorry again for the length of this post, I do hope that it is helpful to some people.
When describing the area of effect itself, it makes the most sense to refer to the point of origin or the point in space. You don't use the word "target" to describe a sphere, for example. But when describing the casting of the spell which creates one of these areas of effect, you know that the point of origin is indeed the target of the spell which creates that area of effect because those are the rules for spellcasting.
And no, not almost every rule that talks about targets is talking about creatures affected by a spell when it comes to AoE spells. For all spells as a whole, sure. That's because a majority of all spells do directly target creatures and those creatures are indeed affected by a spell. Magic Missile works like that. But those aren't AoE spells. For that, you have to look only at the rules which govern the casting of AoE spells.
Your examples are false. Does the rule refer to affected creatures as targets? Cone? No. Cube? No. Cylinder? No. Line? No. Sphere? No. Saving Throws? We'll come back to that one. Attack Rolls? We can come back to that also. Combining Magical Effects? No. Targeting Yourself? Sure, if you are the point of origin for the spell you are targeting yourself. That is consistent with the rules. The Chapter on Spells (Chapter 11) does not discuss this at all.
As far as the Saving Throw rule goes from Chapter 10, it's just incomplete. The description given was too brief. Here is that rule:
Saving Throws
Many spells specify that a target can make a saving throw to avoid some or all of a spell's effects. The spell specifies the ability that the target uses for the save and what happens on a success or failure.
All of this is consistent with the rules. Indeed, there are lots of spells where the target can make a saving throw. That's because lots of spells directly target one or more creatures. Spells like Poison Spray, Bane, and Blindness/Deafness work like this. This rule simply omits that affected creatures might also be able to make a saving throw. That's because this is the rule for Saving Throws and the concept of how a saving throw works has already been adequately explained. There's no need for it to provide a redundant statement for affected creatures when that's not necessary to understand that sometimes a spell will mention a saving throw, and if so, you do what the spell tells you to do. If you come across a spell like Burning Hands which allows affected creatures to make a saving throw, you simply follow the instructions given in the spell description. It's consistent with how Saving Throws function. You don't somehow say that a creature affected by burning hands doesn't get a saving throw because the rule for saving throw only talks about targets -- the spell tells you that they get a saving throw and so they do. That's literally all this Chapter 10 rule is saying -- it's a heads up that a spell might require a creature to make a saving throw.
The mechanics of how to actually roll a Saving Throw and how to apply proficiencies and other modifiers and so on are all in Chapter 7.
The Attack Roll section in Chapter 10 is similar. It discusses spell attacks and how they differ slightly from regular attacks since they use the spellcasting ability modifier. Otherwise, this is just a heads up that some spell descriptions will call for an attack roll. The rules and mechanics for how to actually make that attack roll are found elsewhere.
Here is that rule:
Attack Rolls
Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell effect hits the intended target. Your attack bonus with a spell attack equals your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus.
This is all true and consistent with the rules. And in this case, it's pretty much complete as well because spell attack rolls are pretty much never made as part of an AoE spell. I can't think of any examples of that happening. Booming Blade comes close, but that's not a spell attack, it's a regular attack that is made as part of the spell's effect. So, if we are only talking about spells that directly target creatures then it's perfectly appropriate to use the word "target" in that context.
The spell targeting concept as a whole is clear. I'm not the one cherry picking. I am the one who is discussing the general rules for spellcasting.
Ah, ok I see now where some of you are going wrong here. What you've described above is not what the Targets section is saying.
The whole point of casting a spell is that you are trying to affect something with that spell's magic. In order to do that, you aim it somewhere when you cast it. That's all that sentence means.
There are three things that can be affected by a spell's magic: Creatures, Objects and Areas. The purpose of an AoE spell is to affect an area.
There are three things which can be targeted to achieve this purpose: Creatures, Objects and "a point of originforan area of effect".
In other words, to affect an area with the spell's magic, you target that area's point of origin. That is the rule.
Once the area is affected by the spell's magic, creatures within that area might also be affected -- in the manner described by the particular spell.
That is why your conclusion that "Therefore, if a creature is not affected by the spell, it cannot be considered as a target for the spell" is incorrect, and why I keep telling you that this doesn't matter for the purposes of determining the target of the spell. Once again, we have Burning Hands: Range: self (15-foot-cone) -- "a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips." and also: "A cone extends in a direction you choose from its point of origin . . . A cone's point of origin is not included in the cone's area of effect, unless you decide otherwise." So, in that case the spellcaster himself is the target but he is not affected by the spell's magic.
When you say the whole point of casting a spell is to affect something... it's not just something. You're trying to affect the target, that is what makes them a target. Otherwise target is merely devoid of meaning. It's like saying "I make a melee attack against the creature, but the target of my attack is myself since I'm the one swinging my sword."
My point is, just as the first sentence of range defines range, the first sentence of target defines target. As such, affecting it with the spell's magic is a necessary condition for a target. If it's not affected by the spell's magic, it's not a target of the spell. That's why it says you target creatures specifically to affect them with the spell's magic.
This point is crucial because if you're wrong about this, your whole case falls apart. None of it stands if booming blade doesn't target the caster.
There is nothing that says the point of origin is de facto the spell's target. Notice how your reference tells you what can be targeted; a creature, object, or point of origin. It does not say that a point of origin is always the spell's target. We need to look at the description to see if it is.
It does say this, if and only if we are talking about an AoE spell. It says that one of your options for your target is "a point of originforan area of effect". For an AoE spell, you are not attempting to affect specifically selected creatures or objects, you are attempting to affect an area, so for those spells the point of origin is the target. Of course, tactically, a spellcaster might attempt to affect an area that happens to have some creatures standing within it, but that's not the same thing with respect to understanding what the spell itself is actually doing.
It is not at all obvious BB has an AOE. Range would suggest such, but the effect doesn't actually describe anything filling the area. But this aside, even though you're generally right about AOE, this is not a typical spell. When it has a range of self with parentheses, the range no longer tells us what the target is (JC also said this). It tells us that the spell originates from the caster, but can target anyone or even everyone in range.
Since these are the relevant points of the argument, I'll let just let you respond.
1. Whether targets must be affected by the spell's magic:
Your interpretation seems to suggest that the spell must affect something, but not necessarily the spell target. However, the PHB section on targeting does not support this. The first sentence of the target section clearly states that the targets are to be affected by the spell’s magic. You can't simply hand wave this by claiming it's talking about something other than targets. The rule explicitly connects the concept of targeting to being affected by the spell's magic.
2. The point of origin being necessarily the spell target:
While the point of origin is often a target, nothing in the rules supports the claim that it is always the spell target when the spell has a point of origin. I have provided a citation for my claim. I would need you to do the same for yours. It seems clear that the range "Self (5-foot radius)" means the point of origin is the caster, but the effect indicates the target is the creature hit by the melee attack.
3. Understanding the range and spell effects:
We can't always get all the information we need from the range alone. For instance, with the spell Catapult, you might think you can only use it within 60 feet. However, reading the description shows that you can actually affect a creature 150 feet away with the spell. The specifics in the spell effect can break the norms implied by the range. The range parentheses notation often includes spells with unique mechanics that break these norms.
If you still disagree, consider this: If the creators wanted to design Booming Blade to be eligible for War Caster (by targeting the attack target) yet also restrict it from being twinned (because it doesn't make sense for the metamagic to increase your melee attack speed), how should that spell description be written? In your view, it seems this wouldn't be possible. But the current description of Booming Blade achieves this by targeting the creature hit by the melee attack, making it eligible for War Caster and non-Twinnable.
Wait, you're saying that the rule describing how saving throws work for spells completely omits how saving throws for spells with areas work? Ah, what a torturous reading. That is the opposite of consistency.
The first paragraph of the Saving Throws section in Chapter 10 is literally just giving a heads up that a spell description might talk about saving throws, and if so, you just follow the instructions given in the spell description. This paragraph could be entirely stricken from the book and it would have no mechanical impact since spells do what they say and we would be following the instructions given in the spell description anyway. The nuts and bolts of "how saving throws work" is elsewhere. The statement from the rule that "Many spells specify that a target can make a saving throw" is a valid and true statement that is totally consistent with the general rules for spellcasting. It's also true that many other spells specify that an affected creature can make a saving throw. This is not explicitly written into that paragraph but it's true nonetheless -- there are dozens of examples of this in the actual spell descriptions.
You are doing so much work to try to get the rules to fit into your reading that is extraneous.
It's very little work. All that I have to do is quote the rules and then explain them. It's straightforward because the text in the rules supports what I have been saying.
The rules for everything else that do use "target" seem to universally be talking about creatures affected, even when they would apply to spells.
And this is often the correct usage of the term because many spells do directly target creatures. Those just aren't area of effect spells except for a few cases where the point of origin actually is a creature.
It's like saying "I make a melee attack against the creature, but the target of my [ spell ] is myself since I'm the one swinging my sword."
I modified one word of your statement above which could possibly make this a true statement in the world of D&D. If for some reason I cast a spell that compels me to attack a creature then I have just cast that spell on myself, not on the creature. I make the melee attack against the creature, but the spell is causing ME to do that. I am the target of the spell. The creature is the target of the attack. It's not always that way -- that's just an example of what one hypothetical spell -- let's call it Berzerker -- might actually be doing.
Booming Blade is a bit different than that. Booming Blade is an AoE spell where the AoE is created at the point of the brandishing of the weapon and this causes an effect to fill the surrounding area. If you successfully hit a nearby creature within this area then that creature is affected by the spell.
You're trying to affect the target, that is what makes them a target . . .
. . . affecting it with the spell's magic is a necessary condition for a target. If it's not affected by the spell's magic, it's not a target of the spell.
This is just dead wrong, there's not really a less blunt way to put it. This seems to be coming from a misinterpretation of what the Targets rule is actually saying. For reference, let's list that rule again here:
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect
This text is telling you that the whole purpose / motivation / reason to cast a spell is to attempt to affect something with the spell's magic. In order to do this, you are required to pick / choose / select / determine / dare-I-say . . . target that thing so that you can cast the spell at it. What exactly is that "something" allowed to be? The rule provides exactly 3 options for what can be targeted by a spell:
1. Creatures
2. Objects
3. A point of origin for an area of effect
Those are the only 3 valid choices for what can be targeted in the entire game. Whatever you are trying to affect with the spell's magic is required to be on that list.
This rule does NOT state or even imply in any way that it is a necessary condition for something to be affected by the spell in order for it to be a target. It simply does not say that. There are so many examples of why this cannot be true.
Example: I target a creature with a Sacred Flame spell. It passes its Dexterity Saving Throw. Result? NO effect. Or perhaps more precisely -- no one was affected by the spell. Does that mean that the creature was not targeted by the spell? Of course not. The creature was the target.
Example: I cast Burning Hands on myself, targeting myself to create a point of origin at my location. "a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips. Each creature in a 15-foot cone must make a Dexterity saving throw." But the point of origin is not included in a Cone's Area of Effect so the spellcaster is not affected by this spell.
Whether or not a creature is affected by the spell has nothing at all to do with whether or not that creature is a target of the spell.
It is not at all obvious BB has an AOE. Range would suggest such, but the effect doesn't actually describe anything filling the area.
I do agree with you there -- this spell could have been more clearly written. The major clue is in the notation for the Range (area) of the spell, but it should be more obvious than it is. My hunch about why this happened is that a lot of the text was just carried over from the previous version of the spell pre-errata which DID target a creature within a range of 5 feet. When the errata changed this functionality in 2020 the text should have been cleaned up a bit more to better reflect that change.
When it has a range of self with parentheses, the range no longer tells us what the target is (JC also said this). It tells us that the spell originates from the caster but can target anyone or even everyone in range.
This is all a true statement. But targeting everyone in range when we are talking about a range of self can only be the spellcaster or the spellcaster's location -- otherwise, you are trying to target a creature that is outside of the range, which is against the rules.
Ice knife and storm sphere are both area spells that make attack rolls. Wall of light is a spell that cretes a wall with a definite area, offers saving throws, and can make attacks specifically at targets. Each of these uses "target" to describe the target of the attack, I.e, a creature affected by the spell.
I might be losing track of what you are arguing. No one said that area spells cannot involve attack rolls.
The wording for ice knife is fully consistent with the general rules for spellcasting. This starts out as a spell which directly targets a creature with a ranged spell attack. This creature also becomes the origin point of the AoE. The creature is the target. The text goes on to say "The target and each creature within 5 feet of it must succeed". This is fully consistent. The creature is the target. Other creatures that are affected by the AoE are simply referred to as creatures.
Storm Sphere is also talking about a ranged spell attack, so the spell is directly targeting these creatures -- they don't even have to be within the AoE. The use of the term "target" in this spell is consistent with the general spellcasting rules.
Wall of Light seems to have very similar mechanics to Storm Sphere. I find the usage of the term "target' to be consistent here as well -- the spell refers to creatures as creatures when interacting with the AoE and as targets when they are directly attacked by the spell. Very carefully and deliberately written with the proper targeting concept in mind as is the case with about 95% of all spells.
No spell describes the point in space at which its origin is located as a target.
Yes, that's obvious. The spell doesn't have to say this because it's a general rule for spellcasting from Chapter 10. We cannot expect every spell description to cut-and-paste the entirety of Chapter 10 of the PHB directly into the text for the spell. That's the idea behind general rules -- they are in one place, and you refer back to them as the situation demands.
2. The point of origin being necessarily the spell target:
This is mainly from the rule for Targets: One of the 3 options given for what you are allowed to target is: "a point of origin for an area of effect". In other words, for an area of effect, the target is a point of origin.
Other rules that support this concept include:
"The target of a spell must be within the spell's range"
combined with:
"Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise."
The only way that the Fireball spell functions correctly near the edge of the range is if the target is a point in space. And the only way to cast a spell with a range of self is to cast the spell on the spellcaster or his location.
There is also this:
"Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts"
and
"A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin"
and
"You select a sphere's point of origin, and the sphere extends outward from that point"
Taken together, the core game concept is that you pick a point in space to cast your spell at -- that point in space is affected by the spell's magic insofar as it creates an origin point for an AoE which erupts and expands to fill the defined space. Once this is done, the spell has now been cast. The targeting process is complete. What remains now is an effect within a defined space for the duration which may or may not (often indiscriminately) affect creatures who interact with it. These creatures are not affected by the casting of the spell per se, they are collateral damage from an AoE that is created.
For example, I might position my Fireball at a specific location by targeting a certain place. I accidentally catch one of my friendly allies in the blast and I also happen to damage a creature who was hiding around the corner that I didn't even know about. It's sort of silly to consider those two creatures to be targeted by me under those circumstances.
We can't always get all the information we need from the range alone. For instance, with the spell Catapult, you might think you can only use it within 60 feet. However, reading the description shows that you can actually affect a creature 150 feet away with the spell. The specifics in the spell effect can break the norms implied by the range. The range parentheses notation often includes spells with unique mechanics that break these norms.
In the case of the Catapult spell, the creature is not the target of the spell, the object is. The word "target" is used erroneously in that spell. It's not an AoE spell either -- the object is directly targeted by the spell. The object must be within the range. No norms are broken in terms of the range. The range parentheses notation has a standard meaning that applies to all spells -- it's the range of the spell, followed by the size and shape of the created area of effect in parentheses. This area of effect is created by targeting the point of origin with the spell.
Hopefully I've successfully answered some of your questions!
The word "target" is used erroneously in that spell.
Is that sentence a bad joke?
The word target in Catapult is as accurate, valid, and correct as it is in Booming Blade or any other spell. And the reason is because you cannot always infer the target just by reading the parameter Range. You need to read the entire spell entry to understand each spell fully.
Just for the record, this sentence from XGtE (p. 85):
A spell specifies what a caster can target with it: any type of creature, a creature of a certain type (humanoid or beast, for instance), an object, an area, the caster, or something else.
You should also answer the question alexdohm9191asked you:
If you still disagree, consider this: If the creators wanted to design Booming Blade to be eligible for War Caster (by targeting the attack target) yet also restrict it from being twinned (because it doesn't make sense for the metamagic to increase your melee attack speed), how should that spell description be written? In your view, it seems this wouldn't be possible. But the current description of Booming Blade achieves this by targeting the creature hit by the melee attack, making it eligible for War Caster and non-Twinnable.
You're trying to affect the target, that is what makes them a target . . .
. . . affecting it with the spell's magic is a necessary condition for a target. If it's not affected by the spell's magic, it's not a target of the spell.
This is just dead wrong, there's not really a less blunt way to put it. This seems to be coming from a misinterpretation of what the Targets rule is actually saying. For reference, let's list that rule again here:
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect
This text is telling you that the whole purpose / motivation / reason to cast a spell is to attempt to affect something with the spell's magic. In order to do this, you are required to pick / choose / select / determine / dare-I-say . . . target that thing so that you can cast the spell at it. What exactly is that "something" allowed to be? The rule provides exactly 3 options for what can be targeted by a spell:
The rule states that the purpose of targeting with a spell is to attempt to affect the target with the spell's magic. This distinction is crucial because it defines why you choose a target—to subject it to the spell's effects. The rule defines a target as the entity selected to be affected by the spell's magic. This definition is clear and forms the basis of understanding how spells operate in the game.
This rule does NOT state or even imply in any way that it is a necessary condition for something to be affected by the spell in order for it to be a target. It simply does not say that. There are so many examples of why this cannot be true.
The rule states that targeting involves selecting entities to be affected by the spell's magic. This implies that the intention to affect is inherent to the act of targeting itself.
Example: I target a creature with a Sacred Flame spell. It passes its Dexterity Saving Throw. Result? NO effect. Or perhaps more precisely -- no one was affected by the spell. Does that mean that the creature was not targeted by the spell? Of course not. The creature was the target.
So... Your response to me saying "You're trying to affect the target, that is what makes them a target" is an example where the spell fails? Perhaps you need to listen a little more.
Your example with the failed saving throw doesn’t refute this—it underscores that targeting involves intendingto affect the chosen entity with the spell’s magic, regardless of the outcome. The act of targeting remains about selecting who or what to affect with the spell's effects.
It is not at all obvious BB has an AOE. Range would suggest such, but the effect doesn't actually describe anything filling the area.
I do agree with you there -- this spell could have been more clearly written. The major clue is in the notation for the Range (area) of the spell, but it should be more obvious than it is. My hunch about why this happened is that a lot of the text was just carried over from the previous version of the spell pre-errata which DID target a creature within a range of 5 feet. When the errata changed this functionality in 2020 the text should have been cleaned up a bit more to better reflect that change
I'm glad you agree with the ambiguity of the spell. However, despite this lack of clarity in the description, the intent behind targeting with Booming Blade remains consistent. The spell targets a creature for its initial attack and provides additional consequences if that target moves, rather than affecting an area with its magic.
When it has a range of self with parentheses, the range no longer tells us what the target is (JC also said this). It tells us that the spell originates from the caster but can target anyone or even everyone in range.
This is all a true statement. But targeting everyone in range when we are talking about a range of self can only be the spellcaster or the spellcaster's location -- otherwise, you are trying to target a creature that is outside of the range, which is against the rules.
I understand your point about the interpretation of the spell's range. While Booming Blade has a range of self (5-foot radius), indicating it originates from the caster, the parentheses typically denote an AOE. However, in this spell's case, the crucial point is that the spell's effect specifies targeting a creature for the initial attack, not targeting the caster or the caster's location. This targeting is what determines the eligible target under the spell's mechanics, regardless of the range notation.
Therefore, despite the range notation, Booming Blade's intent is to target a creature with its initial attack, making that creature the eligible target according to the spell's specific rules. It shouldn't be novel for you to see exceptions to rules, given there's a "specific beats general" rule.
2. The point of origin being necessarily the spell target:
This is mainly from the rule for Targets: One of the 3 options given for what you are allowed to target is: "a point of origin for an area of effect". In other words, for an area of effect, the target is a point of origin.
Other rules that support this concept include:
"The target of a spell must be within the spell's range"
combined with:
"Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise."
The only way that the Fireball spell functions correctly near the edge of the range is if the target is a point in space. And the only way to cast a spell with a range of self is to cast the spell on the spellcaster or his location.
There is also this:
"Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts"
and
"A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin"
and
"You select a sphere's point of origin, and the sphere extends outward from that point"
Taken together, the core game concept is that you pick a point in space to cast your spell at -- that point in space is affected by the spell's magic insofar as it creates an origin point for an AoE which erupts and expands to fill the defined space. Once this is done, the spell has now been cast. The targeting process is complete. What remains now is an effect within a defined space for the duration which may or may not (often indiscriminately) affect creatures who interact with it. These creatures are not affected by the casting of the spell per se, they are collateral damage from an AoE that is created.
For example, I might position my Fireball at a specific location by targeting a certain place. I accidentally catch one of my friendly allies in the blast and I also happen to damage a creature who was hiding around the corner that I didn't even know about. It's sort of silly to consider those two creatures to be targeted by me under those circumstances.
Your interpretation hinges on the concept that for spells with an AOE, the target is the point of origin from which the spell's effect expands. While this concept applies to many AOE spells like Fireball, it doesn't universally dictate how all spells, especially single-target spells like Booming Blade, determine their targets. The rules you've cited generally apply to AOE spells, where the point of origin is indeed crucial in determining the spell's area of effect. However, for single-target spells like Booming Blade, the target selection is distinct. The spell's effect focuses on affecting that chosen target, not the point of origin or the caster's location. So Booming Blade operates differently due to its specific targeting rules for single creatures.
We can't always get all the information we need from the range alone. For instance, with the spell Catapult, you might think you can only use it within 60 feet. However, reading the description shows that you can actually affect a creature 150 feet away with the spell. The specifics in the spell effect can break the norms implied by the range. The range parentheses notation often includes spells with unique mechanics that break these norms.
In the case of the Catapult spell, the creature is not the target of the spell, the object is. The word "target" is used erroneously in that spell. It's not an AoE spell either -- the object is directly targeted by the spell. The object must be within the range. No norms are broken in terms of the range. The range parentheses notation has a standard meaning that applies to all spells -- it's the range of the spell, followed by the size and shape of the created area of effect in parentheses. This area of effect is created by targeting the point of origin with the spell.
Hopefully I've successfully answered some of your questions!
In the context of Catapult, the term "target" is used to describe the creature that might be struck by the launched object. This usage is not erroneous but reflects how the spell involves potential interaction with creatures based on the trajectory and impact of the launched object. It signifies the potential outcome of the spell’s effect rather than designating the creature as the primary target in the spell’s casting. In essence, while Catapult's use of "target" for the struck creature isn't erroneous, it exemplifies how spells like Booming Blade can also target creatures through unique mechanics that extend beyond conventional range notations, focusing on specific interactions and effects within the game's mechanics.
It’s important to address the core question I posed earlier:
If you still disagree, consider this: If the creators wanted to design Booming Blade to be eligible for War Caster (by targeting the attack target) yet also restrict it from being twinned (because it doesn't make sense for the metamagic to increase your melee attack speed), how should that spell description be written? In your view, it seems this wouldn't be possible. But the current description of Booming Blade achieves this by targeting the creature hit by the melee attack, making it eligible for War Caster and non-Twinnable.
This question cuts to the heart of how spell mechanics and targeting are designed in D&D. The current description of Booming Blade effectively targets the creature hit by the melee attack, aligning it with War Caster eligibility while excluding it from being twinned due to its unique mechanics. If you believe this approach is insufficient or impractical, I'm interested in hearing if there’s a method to achieve this balance without resorting to inelegant solutions like explicitly listing ineligibility for Twin Spell in the spell's effect.
Example: I cast Burning Hands on myself, targeting myself to create a point of origin at my location. "a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips. Each creature in a 15-foot cone must make a Dexterity saving throw." But the point of origin is not included in a Cone's Area of Effect so the spellcaster is not affected by this spell.
In this scenario, the caster serves as the point of origin for the cone-shaped area of effect. It's crucial to note that, as per the PHB,
A cone’s point of origin is not included in the cone’s area of effect, unless you decide otherwise.
The caster's hands serve as the point of origin for the spell. This means the flames emanate from the caster's position, spreading out in a cone shape.
In this context, the targets are creatures within the 15-foot cone who are potentially affected by the spell's effects. These targets are not chosen beforehand but are determined by their positions relative to the cone's area when the spell is cast.
If the spell's range were simply "Self" without any direction or area of effect specified, it would be unclear how the spell's effect is manifested. However, spells like Burning Hands specify in the effect that a cone of fire extends from the caster's outstretched fingertips in a chosen direction. This directional aspect reflects the caster choosing a point of origin (themselves) for the spell's effect, which then affects creatures within the cone's area. Thus, while the caster is the point of origin, the spell's effect targets creatures within the cone, not the caster themselves.
The word "target" is used erroneously in that spell.
Is that sentence a bad joke?
The word target in Catapult is as accurate, valid, and correct
No, that's not a joke. The range of the catapult spell is 60 feet. It says: "Choose one object weighing 1 to 5 pounds within range that isn’t being worn or carried. The object flies . . ."
The target of this spell is this object. You are casting a spell on the object, which causes it to do something. The rest of the text makes that extremely clear -- it's all about what happens to the object when various things happen to it such as impacting a solid surface or striking a creature. For example, you could use this spell to bombard and attempt to damage sections of a castle wall or gate. The sentence "On a failed save, the object strikes the target and stops moving" is literally an error. It should say: "the target object strikes the creature and stops moving".
If you still disagree, consider this: If the creators wanted to design Booming Blade to be eligible for War Caster (by targeting the attack target) yet also restrict it from being twinned (because it doesn't make sense for the metamagic to increase your melee attack speed), how should that spell description be written? In your view, it seems this wouldn't be possible. But the current description of Booming Blade achieves this by targeting the creature hit by the melee attack, making it eligible for War Caster and non-Twinnable.
This hypothetical serves little purpose but since people are interested, I'll give it a shot.
Based on the wording of the War Caster Feat and the Twinned Spell Metamagic Feature, the only way to be eligible for War Caster and not Twinned Spell is if you cast a spell at a creature that targets only that creature but is capable of targeting more than one creature. An example of this would be to cast Magic Missile at the creature and only that creature. This spell is not an AoE spell -- it directly targets creatures. It is eligible for War Caster but is not eligible to be Twinned.
So... Your response to me saying "You're trying to affect the target, that is what makes them a target" is an example where the spell fails? Perhaps you need to listen a little more.
Your example with the failed saving throw doesn’t refute this—it underscores that targeting involves intendingto affect the chosen entity with the spell’s magic, regardless of the outcome. The act of targeting remains about selecting who or what to affect with the spell's effects.
No, this isn't what you said and that's not what I was responding to. If that's actually what you meant, then that is a different story.
What I responded to was this:
" affecting it with the spell's magic is a necessary condition for a target. If it's not affected by the spell's magic, it's not a target of the spell."
and as I said, there is no such condition and it does not matter at all if the target is affected by the effects created by the AoE.
For an AoE spell, you are attempting to fill an area with a magical effect and by extension you are attempting to affect the point of origin by creating an AoE at that point. In the specific case where a creature IS the point of origin of an AoE spell (such as for Burning Hands), that creature is affected by magic in the sense that an AoE is erupting straight out of him -- that's a pretty magical thing to have happen to someone. In this case, flames are shooting straight out of the dude's hands. But in this case, by rule, the point of origin is not actually within the Area of Effect and therefore the point of origin (whether it's a creature or not) cannot be affected by the effect that's created by the AoE itself. It's only affected by the casting of the spell such that an AoE is created there.
the intent behind targeting with Booming Blade remains consistent. The spell targets a creature for its initial attack and provides additional consequences if that target moves, rather than affecting an area with its magic.
No. The spell used to work like that. It was specifically and deliberately changed via errata in 2020. If you want this functionality, just use the old version of the spell.
I understand your point about the interpretation of the spell's range. While Booming Blade has a range of self (5-foot radius), indicating it originates from the caster, the parentheses typically denote an AOE. However, in this spell's case, the crucial point is that the spell's effect specifies targeting a creature for the initial attack, not targeting the caster or the caster's location. This targeting is what determines the eligible target under the spell's mechanics, regardless of the range notation.
You almost have it here. But the parentheses always denote an AoE. That's the standard notation used throughout the game. You are correct that the spell's effect specifies targeting a creature for the initial attack. This is part of the spell effect, it's not the target of the spell. It's not a spell attack originating from the casting of the spell, it's a regular weapon attack that the spell compels YOU (the spellcaster) to make as a part of the spell's effect.
For the Booming Blade spell to do what you are thinking, the range would be different and the description would instruct you to make a spell attack against a target creature. (This is partly why JC is saying that the original range for the spell was "wrong").
Your interpretation hinges on the concept that for spells with an AOE, the target is the point of origin from which the spell's effect expands. While this concept applies to many AOE spells like Fireball, it doesn't universally dictate how all spells, especially single-target spells like Booming Blade, determine their targets.
It does universally dictate how all AoE spells work -- it's the general rule for spellcasting AoE spells. The spell would have to make a very explicit specific vs general exception in order for these mechanics to work differently. An example of a spell that sort of does this was the ice knife spell suggested earlier -- in that case you are specifically directly targeting a creature within range with a spell attack first -- then the AoE erupts from that point. Nothing like this is happening with the Booming Blade spell.
The fact that the AoE in Booming Blade is restricted to only being able to affect one creature is irrelevant to how the mechanics of AoE spells function. This spell is a cantrip, so the AoE is not very powerful.
The caster's hands serve as the point of origin for the spell. This means the flames emanate from the caster's position, spreading out in a cone shape.
In this context, the targets are creatures within the 15-foot cone who are potentially affected by the spell's effects. These targets are not chosen beforehand but are determined by their positions relative to the cone's area when the spell is cast.
This is absolutely positively NOT how spells such as Burning Hands work. The range of the spell is "self" and the target must be within range. It's also an AoE spell, which means that the target of the spell is the origin point of the AoE. The choice here is between the spellcaster himself and the spellcaster's location. The text for the spell effect confirms that the cone erupts directly out of the spellcaster himself in this case.
Creatures who happen to be standing within the area that is filled by the Cone are not targets of the spell. They are not within range and they are not the origin point of the AoE. They aren't even specifically selected or aimed at by the spellcaster. The text of the spell never even refers to these creatures as targets -- almost all spells are actually very careful about this for this exact reason.
Your interpretation here is totally inconsistent with the general rules for spellcasting including the rules for Range, the rules for Targets, and the rules for Areas of Effect. Spells like this do not work the way that you are saying.
How is it that every time there is a counter example, you can jump through an ever increasing series of hoop to explain it away and still say that yours is the simpler reading.
This is because none of the counter examples actually refute anything that I've said since I am just saying what the actual rules are as they are written. When a counter example fails to refute my point, all I have to do is explain why -- sometimes providing quotes directly from the rules to make the explanation clear. The idea behind this is that once in a while another Forum poster will respond with something like "Oh! I get it now, thank you!" but so far in this thread that hasn't been happening.
How is it that you admit every time "target" means "creature affected" in context, even in area of effect spells, except when it is convenient to your argument?
I have never "admitted" any such thing since that's not the rule. If we are NOT talking about AoE spells, then yes -- creatures can be targeted directly. But when a creature is standing within an area that happens to be filled with an area of effect and is affected by that effect, that is a passive event that is happening to that creature. It's not being targeted by anything.
For example, if a creature goes for a swim in a frozen lake, it may begin to feel cold. We wouldn't say that the lake is targeting the creature. Likewise, if I fill up my bathtub with ice water and then a creature comes along and lies down within that water in my bathtub and begins to feel cold, we also wouldn't say that I have targeted that creature. A magic spell that fills a space with a particular area of effect is not targeting anything within that area -- the spell targets the point of origin in order to create that area in the first place.
Why is it easier for you to believe that statements that could use your definition of 'target' don't even though that's the only definition? Why do you think rules that use target and are ostensibly talking about all types of spells conveniently left out area spells? Why is it that so many (even post PHB) area spells call creatures affected 'targets'? Why is it easier for you to believe the DMG is in error than read the text "Targets in Areas of Effects" and believe it is actually describing something useful to the game? Do the "Invalid Spell Targets" rules from Xanathars not work on area spells? Why does the game expect that you can use Booming Blade with War Caster (it was errata'ed specifically to keep this and disallow other features like twin spell and distant spell, and that point was discussed by the person who wrote the errata)?
Since you're asking, I do have an explanation for this. It just boils down to simple inconsistency in how some of the rules were written. The reason why this happens is because there are several different authors who are all working on different aspect of various source books, spell descriptions and so on and they are not all on the same page about this game concept that is well defined as a general rule for spellcasting in Chapter 10. Even JC himself often does not seem to be fully aware of the details of every rule in the game -- not just on this topic, but on dozens of other unrelated topics, and this is well documented.
What often happens is that an author will be attempting to describe a separate rule or concept and will just throw in the word "target" as sort of a descriptive catch-all in a colloquial, every-day sort of usage of the term without realizing that this word is an important game term with specific mechanical consequences. The chart in the DMG is a perfect example of this. This author is seemingly unaware that the word "target" is not used in this manner for AoE spells, and he is also trying to create a readable heading for a chart. Calling it something like "Affected Creatures and/or Objects in Areas of Effect" and then using column headers of "Area" and "Number of Affected Creatures and/or Objects" would make for sort of an ugly chart. So, he picks a catch-all term that sort of describes what he's trying to say. But now, as a consequence, some readers come along and assume that this means that the general rule for spellcasting must be different than what it actually says. As I've said, that's unfortunate.
What this author is sort of implying is that there is a such thing as a "target" of an area of effect that is completely separate from the target of a spell (remember, the target of a spell MUST be within range, among other things). If that were true, it would become extremely confusing and cumbersome to constantly have to figure out which version of "target" is meant when interacting with all sorts of Feats, Features and other game mechanics which refer to the term. This would also be totally inconsistent with what is actually written in the general rules for spellcasting in Chapter 10 and how almost all spell descriptions are written.
That is why I refer to text like this as "erroneous", since simply using a word like "inconsistent" doesn't seem to quite be enough to describe it. It's FAR better to just refer to affected creatures of an AoE as affected creatures, since that's what they are.
If you still disagree, consider this: If the creators wanted to design Booming Blade to be eligible for War Caster (by targeting the attack target) yet also restrict it from being twinned (because it doesn't make sense for the metamagic to increase your melee attack speed), how should that spell description be written? In your view, it seems this wouldn't be possible. But the current description of Booming Blade achieves this by targeting the creature hit by the melee attack, making it eligible for War Caster and non-Twinnable.
This hypothetical serves little purpose but since people are interested, I'll give it a shot.
Based on the wording of the War Caster Feat and the Twinned Spell Metamagic Feature, the only way to be eligible for War Caster and not Twinned Spell is if you cast a spell at a creature that targets only that creature but is capable of targeting more than one creature. An example of this would be to cast Magic Missile at the creature and only that creature. This spell is not an AoE spell -- it directly targets creatures. It is eligible for War Caster but is not eligible to be Twinned.
That doesn't really answer the question. Allowing it to target more than one creature makes it ineligible for war caster. The reason it works with war caster is because it targets the attack target. The reason it doesn't work with twin spell is because it has self included in the range. The question is whether you can make it both eligible with war caster and ineligible with twin spell. So the point is to take for granted that booming blade is supposed to target the attack target but disqualify itself from twinning because of the self range, while still doing what the spell effect says.
So... Your response to me saying "You're trying to affect the target, that is what makes them a target" is an example where the spell fails? Perhaps you need to listen a little more.
Your example with the failed saving throw doesn’t refute this—it underscores that targeting involves intendingto affect the chosen entity with the spell’s magic, regardless of the outcome. The act of targeting remains about selecting who or what to affect with the spell's effects.
No, this isn't what you said and that's not what I was responding to. If that's actually what you meant, then that is a different story.
What I responded to was this:
" affecting it with the spell's magic is a necessary condition for a target. If it's not affected by the spell's magic, it's not a target of the spell."
Both statements were in the quote box ON YOUR POST... You can't lie when the record is public. I said both of those things. I was obviously talking about affecting the creature in the case of success... And I have said this repeatedly throughout this thread. There is no way you didn't notice... YOU QUOTED ME IN THIS RESPONSE!
You're trying to affect the target, that is what makes them a target . . .
. . . affecting it with the spell's magic is a necessary condition for a target. If it's not affected by the spell's magic, it's not a target of the spell.
This is just dead wrong...
There's the proof... Now STOP QUOTE MINING ME! I will not tolerate it.
and as I said, there is no such condition and it does not matter at all if the target is affected by the effects created by the AoE.
I have thoroughly addressed this.
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic.
The point of targeting is to affect the target with the spell's magic. If it can't, meaning it is unable, then it's not a target. What exactly would be the point of targeting something with a spell if that target is not what you're affect with the magic of the spell? Affecting is connected to targeting. You have not refuted this.
The caster's hands serve as the point of origin for the spell. This means the flames emanate from the caster's position, spreading out in a cone shape.
In this context, the targets are creatures within the 15-foot cone who are potentially affected by the spell's effects. These targets are not chosen beforehand but are determined by their positions relative to the cone's area when the spell is cast.
This is absolutely positively NOT how spells such as Burning Hands work. The range of the spell is "self" and the target must be within range. It's also an AoE spell, which means that the target of the spell is the origin point of the AoE. The choice here is between the spellcaster himself and the spellcaster's location. The text for the spell effect confirms that the cone erupts directly out of the spellcaster himself in this case.
Creatures who happen to be standing within the area that is filled by the Cone are not targets of the spell. They are not within range and they are not the origin point of the AoE. They aren't even specifically selected or aimed at by the spellcaster. The text of the spell never even refers to these creatures as targets -- almost all spells are actually very careful about this for this exact reason.
Your interpretation here is totally inconsistent with the general rules for spellcasting including the rules for Range, the rules for Targets, and the rules for Areas of Effect. Spells like this do not work the way that you are saying.
The range "self" indicates that the caster is the origin point of the spell's effect, but this doesn't make the caster the primary target of the spell. Instead, it means the spell is cast from the caster’s position, affecting an area extending outward. The term "self" in the range specifies where the spell originates, not necessarily who or what is directly targeted by the spell. The rules for Areas of Effect (AoE) specify that a spell affects creatures or objects within the defined area, which is consistent with how Burning Hands operates. The cone's area includes all creatures within it who must make a saving throw against the spell’s effects. Jeremy Crawford has provided clarifications indicating that creatures affected by an AoE spell like Burning Hands are not the primary targets but are affected by being within the spell's area.
The spell description of Burning Hands specifies that "Each creature in a 15-foot cone must make a Dexterity saving throw." This aligns with the AoE mechanics where creatures within the cone are affected by the spell but are not individually targeted beforehand. This distinction is critical for understanding how AoE spells function. Your interpretation that the spellcaster or their location is the sole target is incorrect. The correct interpretation is that the spellcaster is the point of origin, and the creatures within the cone are affected by the spell, aligning with the rules for Range, Targets, and AoE. This understanding is consistent with other AoE spells, where the effect spreads from a point of origin and affects all within the specified area.
You have failed to provide any source which says the point of origin is always the spell target when one is indicated. I have provided my source as to why a target of the spell is meant to be affected by the spell's magic. You need to prove your case, not just repeat it. The caster’s hands serve as the point of origin for Burning Hands, and the flames indeed emanate from the caster's position, spreading out in a cone shape. The creatures within the cone are affected by the spell and must make a Dexterity saving throw, but they are not the initial targets chosen by the caster. They are determined by their position within the cone when the spell is cast.
Jeremy Crawford has provided clarifications on the self parentheses notation. The spell description of Burning Hands specifies that "Each creature in a 15-foot cone must make a Dexterity saving throw." This aligns with the AoE mechanics where creatures within the cone are affected by the spell but are not individually targeted beforehand. This distinction is critical for understanding how AoE spells function. Your interpretation that the spellcaster or their location is the sole target is incorrect. The correct interpretation is that the spellcaster is the point of origin, and the creatures within the cone are affected by the spell, aligning with the rules for Range, Targets, and AoE. This understanding is consistent with other AoE spells, where the effect spreads from a point of origin and affects all within the specified area.
The word "target" is used erroneously in that spell.
Is that sentence a bad joke?
The word target in Catapult is as accurate, valid, and correct
No, that's not a joke. The range of the catapult spell is 60 feet. It says: "Choose one object weighing 1 to 5 pounds within range that isn’t being worn or carried. The object flies . . ."
The target of this spell is this object. You are casting a spell on the object, which causes it to do something. The rest of the text makes that extremely clear -- it's all about what happens to the object when various things happen to it such as impacting a solid surface or striking a creature. For example, you could use this spell to bombard and attempt to damage sections of a castle wall or gate. The sentence "On a failed save, the object strikes the target and stops moving" is literally an error. It should say: "the target object strikes the creature and stops moving".
The term "target" as used in the spell's description is not erroneous. The spell has a multi-target effect: first, it targets the object within range, and then it targets a creature within a different range (up to 90 feet from the object). The range notation in the spell block can't capture this complexity because the second range is with respect to the object, whereas the range in the block is always with respect to the caster. But this is why it has to be explicitly stated in the spell's effect. And this example serves to illustrate that spells can have complex effects which cannot be fully captured by the range notation, and in fact, can contradict the range notation. This is why the specific beats general rule exists, not for you to claim it must be erroneous because you know better.
The word "target" is used erroneously in that spell.
Is that sentence a bad joke?
The word target in Catapult is as accurate, valid, and correct
No, that's not a joke. The range of the catapult spell is 60 feet. It says: "Choose one object weighing 1 to 5 pounds within range that isn’t being worn or carried. The object flies . . ."
The target of this spell is this object. You are casting a spell on the object, which causes it to do something. The rest of the text makes that extremely clear -- it's all about what happens to the object when various things happen to it such as impacting a solid surface or striking a creature. For example, you could use this spell to bombard and attempt to damage sections of a castle wall or gate. The sentence "On a failed save, the object strikes the target and stops moving" is literally an error. It should say: "the target object strikes the creature and stops moving".
You are providing incorrect information here and confusing people. I have already quoted an official text describing what target is in D&D 5e, as have many others before me:
If you still disagree, consider this: If the creators wanted to design Booming Blade to be eligible for War Caster (by targeting the attack target) yet also restrict it from being twinned (because it doesn't make sense for the metamagic to increase your melee attack speed), how should that spell description be written? In your view, it seems this wouldn't be possible. But the current description of Booming Blade achieves this by targeting the creature hit by the melee attack, making it eligible for War Caster and non-Twinnable.
This hypothetical serves little purpose but since people are interested, I'll give it a shot.
Based on the wording of the War Caster Feat and the Twinned Spell Metamagic Feature, the only way to be eligible for War Caster and not Twinned Spell is if you cast a spell at a creature that targets only that creature but is capable of targeting more than one creature. An example of this would be to cast Magic Missile at the creature and only that creature. This spell is not an AoE spell -- it directly targets creatures. It is eligible for War Caster but is not eligible to be Twinned.
This is an invalid example because we need a single melee weapon attack within 5 feet targeting a single creature, not a spell attack where you could make multiple attacks to the same target (also, important: Magic Missile is not an attack)
[JeremyC] 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 [...]
This thread is a now mess with one person repeating the same incorrect information all the time. I hope visitors will be able to distinguish the correct information.
So you couldn't figure out a way for a one action spell to cause an enhanced melee attack that is capable of being used with War Caster but not Twinned spell (or, also importantly, distant spell)?
Why do we need it to be a melee spell? That's not a requirement for War Caster. But if you prefer a melee spell then Steel Wind Strike qualifies. It works with War Caster but is not eligible to be Twinned.
Allowing it to target more than one creature makes it ineligible for war caster.
No it doesn't. And in fact, this is the only difference between the requirements for war caster and the requirements for Twinning:
War Caster: "must target only that creature."
Twinned Spell: "To be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level"
Spells with a range of "self" do not work for War Caster and they do not work for Twinned Spell. As soon as you increase the range to be able to work for War Caster, the spell also works for Twinned Spell unless the spell is capable of targeting one or more creatures.
The reason it works with war caster is because it targets the attack target. The reason it doesn't work with twin spell is because it has self included in the range. The question is whether you can make it both eligible with war caster and ineligible with twin spell. So the point is to take for granted that booming blade is supposed to target the attack target but disqualify itself from twinning because of the self range, while still doing what the spell effect says.
No, it doesn't work with War Caster because it doesn't target the attack target. It literally cannot do this unless the spellcaster targets himself. The spell has a range of "self" and the target of a spell must be within range.
What you are proposing here is not possible because of this reason and because of the reasons I've just stated above.
I'm not even sure why you guys are going down this rabbit hole of the Twinned Spell Feature anyway -- that feels like it's starting to stray off-topic.
So... Your response to me saying "You're trying to affect the target, that is what makes them a target" is an example where the spell fails? Perhaps you need to listen a little more.
Your example with the failed saving throw doesn’t refute this—it underscores that targeting involves intendingto affect the chosen entity with the spell’s magic, regardless of the outcome. The act of targeting remains about selecting who or what to affect with the spell's effects.
No, this isn't what you said and that's not what I was responding to. If that's actually what you meant, then that is a different story.
What I responded to was this:
" affecting it with the spell's magic is a necessary condition for a target. If it's not affected by the spell's magic, it's not a target of the spell."
Both statements were in the quote box ON YOUR POST... You can't lie when the record is public. I said both of those things. I was obviously talking about affecting the creature in the case of success... And I have said this repeatedly throughout this thread. There is no way you didn't notice... YOU QUOTED ME IN THIS RESPONSE!
Ok, first, just as a broad blanket statement -- not calling anyone out in particular -- I do not like being called a liar. This will not happen to me in the future.
As for your particular claim here, I encourage you to go back and review Post #105 in this thread and look at what I quoted from you immediately before giving my Sacred Flame example.
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic.
The point of targeting is to affect the target with the spell's magic. If it can't, meaning it is unable, then it's not a target. What exactly would be the point of targeting something with a spell if that target is not what you're affect with the magic of the spell? Affecting is connected to targeting. You have not refuted this.
And again, this is false. This statement does not logically mean that if you are unable to affect the thing that you aimed at that it was not a target. It simply doesn't say that and it doesn't mean that. Furthermore, literally immediately after this statement that you are quoting, the game gives you exactly 3 options for what you are allowed to target in the game, one of which is "a point of origin for an area of effect". If you are trying to affect an area with the spell's magic, you explicitly don't target the area, you instead target "a point of origin for an area of effect". The point of origin itself is also affected by the spell's magic just from the simple fact that an area of effect erupts from that location -- regardless of whether or not this point of origin is actually included within the area of effect that was just created. Any interpretation of this rule which concludes that the point of origin for an area of effect is not a target is false. It's literally one of the three options given and it's the only option that's given "for an area of effect".
The range "self" indicates that the caster is the origin point of the spell's effect, but this doesn't make the caster the primary target of the spell.
Yes, it does. There is no other way to cast the spell. The target of the spell must be within range.
Instead, it means the spell is cast from the caster’s position, affecting an area extending outward.
The part about affecting an area is exactly correct. But the range of a spell has nothing to do with where the spell is cast from. It restricts where the spell is cast to.
The term "self" in the range specifies where the spell originates, not necessarily who or what is directly targeted by the spell.
No, this is false. The rules for Range do not say anything like this. The source of a spell is pretty much always the spellcaster, although sometimes it can be cast from a magic item. The Range of a spell indicates how far away the target is allowed to be:
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range.
The spell effect really doesn't come into existence until it has travelled from the source to the target. This "travelling" of the spell while it is being cast but before the spell effect exists is implied by rules like this:
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
The "travelling" of the spell from the source to the target generally has no mechanical meaning. But some spells will add some flavor to describe it, such as with Magic Missile: "You create three glowing darts of magical force". Others might ignore this which makes this process seemingly imperceptible, such as Minor Illusion: "You create a sound or an image of an object within range".
The point of all of this is that the Range of a spell is not saying anything about the source of the spell, which is usually the spellcaster. The Range restricts how far away the target can be from the source.
The spell description of Burning Hands specifies that "Each creature in a 15-foot cone must make a Dexterity saving throw." This aligns with the AoE mechanics where creatures within the cone are affected by the spell but are not individually targeted beforehand. This distinction is critical for understanding how AoE spells function. Your interpretation that the spellcaster or their location is the sole target is incorrect. The correct interpretation is that the spellcaster is the point of origin, and the creatures within the cone are affected by the spell, aligning with the rules for Range, Targets, and AoE. This understanding is consistent with other AoE spells, where the effect spreads from a point of origin and affects all within the specified area.
Wait, what? This text makes all of the correct and accurate descriptions and then draws the wrong conclusion in the portion that I've highlighted. Yes, creatures within the cone are affected by the spell but are not individually targeted. Yes, the spellcaster is the point of origin and the creatures within the cone are affected by the spell. Yes, this aligns with the general rules for spellcasting. Yes, for AoE spells the effect spreads from a point of origin and affects all within the specified area.
How did we just jump from all of that to saying that the spellcaster is not the sole target of Burning Hands? That makes no sense. Everything else written there supports exactly what I've been saying. The only logical conclusion is that the spellcaster is the target of the Burning Hands spell, which has a range of "self".
When the Burning Hands spell is cast, the spell "travels" from the spellcaster to its target within range, which is the spellcaster himself. Once there, the targeting process is complete and the casting of the spell is complete and the release of the spell effect commences. The point of origin is created and the area of effect erupts and spreads outwards from there, potentially affecting one or more creatures who happen to be somewhere in this area.
You have failed to provide any source which says the point of origin is always the spell target when one is indicated.
I'm sorry if you see it that way. I can only quote all of the general rules for spellcasting that explain the concept so many times. If you want to run your games differently then that's totally fine.
The term "target" as used in the spell's description is not erroneous. The spell has a multi-target effect: first, it targets the object within range, and then it targets a creature within a different range (up to 90 feet from the object). The range notation in the spell block can't capture this complexity because the second range is with respect to the object, whereas the range in the block is always with respect to the caster. But this is why it has to be explicitly stated in the spell's effect. And this example serves to illustrate that spells can have complex effects which cannot be fully captured by the range notation, and in fact, can contradict the range notation. This is why the specific beats general rule exists, not for you to claim it must be erroneous because you know better.
No, this is all incorrect. The target of the catapult spell is an object. The entire description is about the object. It makes a note of what happens if the object happens to strike a creature, but it doesn't have to. This object could be sent flying into a castle gate or a wooden crate or a pool of water. Any creatures who might be affected by this spell are not targeted at all. Notice the phrasing: "If the object would strike a creature", which is deliberate.
Compare this against a spell like Magic Stone: In that case, the target is also an object and the Range is "Touch". Then: "You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling. If thrown, it has a range of 60 feet." -- "On a hit, the target takes bludgeoning damage". In this case, the spell is making explicit changes which make it clear that during the 1 minute duration the spell effect can become a spell that directly targets a creature. A new range is properly defined for this portion of the spell effect. In this case, the term "target" is used correctly. This is never an AoE spell -- it becomes a spell that directly targets a creature with a ranged spell attack.
My only intention with all of this is to help clear up and fully explain some of the rules for spellcasting that are relevant for understanding the Booming Blade spell and why it doesn't properly combo with the War Caster Feat when it comes to the RAW. Nothing more. Hopefully these explanations are helpful.
So you couldn't figure out a way for a one action spell to cause an enhanced melee attack that is capable of being used with War Caster but not Twinned spell (or, also importantly, distant spell)?
Why do we need it to be a melee spell? That's not a requirement for War Caster. But if you prefer a melee spell then Steel Wind Strike qualifies. It works with War Caster but is not eligible to be Twinned.
Booming Blade requires a melee attack and targets only one creature within 5 feet, with no other options in the spell entry.
If you take Steel Wind Strike and change the text to something like:
"You flourish the weapon used in the casting and then vanish to strike like the wind. Choose ONLY ONE creature you can see within range. Make a melee spell attack against that TARGET. On a hit, the TARGET takes 6d10 force damage."
Then it works with War Caster and can be Twinned. And we don't want this. I assume you know how to solve this problem: use the Range you can find in Booming Blade.
Also... hey, Steel Wind Strike says "Make a melee spell attack against each TARGET. On a hit, the TARGET takes 6d10 force damage." According to your own wrong rules, the spell is wrong/erroneous/inconsistent 😒 but obviously, the spell is perfectly fine.
You are providing incorrect information here and confusing people. I have already quoted an official text describing what target is in D&D 5e, as have many others before me:
I vehemently disagree with this. Just because you can find some other threads where a different conclusion was drawn does not make me incorrect about what the rules actually say and what they mean. And unless your "official text" comes directly out of the rulebooks then those are not the Rules As Written.
This is an invalid example because we need a single melee weapon attack within 5 feet targeting a single creature, not a spell attack where you could make multiple attacks to the same target (also, important: Magic Missile is not an attack)
What is even the point of this exercise? It's off-topic. Why do we "need a single melee weapon attack" and why do we care if the spell is an attack or not? The War Caster Feat does not require any of those things. I've already provided two examples of spells which would work for War Caster that are not Twinnable.
As for your developer comment: As has already been established a few times in this thread now, Jeremy Crawford is wrong. He is often wrong about the rules and this fact is absolutely indisputable.
This thread is a now mess with one person repeating the same incorrect information all the time. I hope visitors will be able to distinguish the correct information.
Actually, there are a lot more than one person repeating the same incorrect information all the time. I have been doing my best to help those people correctly understand the topic but I haven't seen too many "Ah ha" lightbulb moments happening from them yet. Oh well, maybe soon!
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...
If you are still unsure and you've read all this, ask your DM. That's a cop out answer, but apparently a very small but nonzero number of people think that a spell with a description telling you that it affects only one creature and very clearly targets that creature is not a spell that targets one creature.
Additional relevant text:
War Caster:
you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature
Booming Blade requires a melee attack and targets only one creature within 5 feet, with no other options in the spell entry.
Booming Blade actually targets the spellcaster. It affects a creature within the AoE when that creature is hit with an ordinary melee weapon attack from the weapon that was used as a component in casting the spell.
If you want Booming Blade to behave differently, just use the old version of the spell. But that version of the spell is Twinnable (and why we care about this I still have no idea).
You can't have it both ways. There is no such thing as a spell which can only target a single creature beyond the range of self that is not Twinnable. As I've already quoted, the requirements for working with War Caster and the requirements for a spell to be Twinnable are very similar. I'm not sure what the confusion is here.
Also... hey, Steel Wind Strike says "Make a melee spell attack against each TARGET. On a hit, the TARGET takes 6d10 force damage." According to your own wrong rules, the spell is wrong/erroneous/inconsistent 😒 but obviously, the spell is perfectly fine.
I don't get it. I never said that there was anything wrong with Steel Wind Strike. That spell uses the term "target" correctly. That spell is not an AoE spell. It directly targets creatures within the range by making melee spell attacks against them. What is the confusion?
Allowing it to target more than one creature makes it ineligible for war caster.
No it doesn't. And in fact, this is the only difference between the requirements for war caster and the requirements for Twinning:
War Caster: "must target only that creature."
Twinned Spell: "To be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level"
Spells with a range of "self" do not work for War Caster and they do not work for Twinned Spell. As soon as you increase the range to be able to work for War Caster, the spell also works for Twinned Spell unless the spell is capable of targeting one or more creatures.
Yeah, I misunderstood you there. That would work with war caster, but it still misses the point. You may think this is pointless, but the reason I'm asking you this is because I don't think it is possible to have the description of Booming Blade with the same effect but that targets the melee target and making it eligible for war caster but ineligible for twin. Your proposed change would indeed fundamentally alter the spell, but the current design avoids this by cleverly using the interaction between spellcasting and melee combat.
Ok, first, just as a broad blanket statement -- not calling anyone out in particular -- I do not like being called a liar. This will not happen to me in the future.
Neither do I... you said that's not what I said nor what you were responding to. It was in the quote on your post. Do not call me a liar. I called you out and you gaslighted me. That's unacceptable.
And again, this is false. This statement does not logically mean that if you are unable to affect the thing that you aimed at that it was not a target. It simply doesn't say that and it doesn't mean that.
Then you need to give a proper interpretation. What does it mean by "targets to be affected by the spell’s magic"? It seems you've only said "well... it affects something... that's all..." no. Not good enough. It's not taking about just something, it's talking about targets. You target something to affect it. That's the aim of targeting. You haven't refuted this. That wasn't a real quote from you BTW.
Why do weFurthermore, literally immediately after this statement that you are quoting, the game gives you exactly 3 options for what you are allowed to target in the game, one of which is "a point of origin for an area of effect".
Yeah, but that's immaterial to the point. No matter what you can target, you are still targeting to affect it with the spell's magic. It can be any of the three, but it still needs to have the intent of being affected by the spell.
Why do weIf you are trying to affect an area with the spell's magic, you explicitly don't target the area, you instead target "a point of origin for an area of effect". The point of origin itself is also affected by the spell's magic just from the simple fact that an area of effect erupts from that location -- regardless of whether or not this point of origin is actually included within the area of effect that was just created. Any interpretation of this rule which concludes that the point of origin for an area of effect is not a target is false. It's literally one of the three options given and it's the only option that's given "for an area of effect".
That's generally correct... but there's always the caveat... unless the spell says otherwise. General rules always have exceptions, don't forget specific beats general.
Why do weYes, it does. There is no other way to cast the spell. The target of the spell must be within range.
5-foot radius is part of the range. Targets can be within 5 feet and within range... Why else would it be in the range block? The point of the range block is to tell you eligible targets, right? So five feet is within range.
Why do weWait, what? This text makes all of the correct and accurate descriptions and then draws the wrong conclusion in the portion that I've highlighted. Yes, creatures within the cone are affected by the spell but are not individually targeted. Yes, the spellcaster is the point of origin and the creatures within the cone are affected by the spell. Yes, this aligns with the general rules for spellcasting. Yes, for AoE spells the effect spreads from a point of origin and affects all within the specified area.
You've misunderstood me. I specifically said that the creatures in the aoe are not targeted *beforehand.* They are targets once the AOE has been determined. Obviously you need to first determine the direction of the cone, then the affected targets based on the cone's range. Again, self parentheses is a special category. They don't confirm to typical spell norms.
Why do weI'm sorry if you see it that way. I can only quote all of the general rules for spellcasting that explain the concept so many times. If you want to run your games differently then that's totally fine.
What would help is if you cites something that actually says what you're saying... something that says "The point of origin is always the target when there is one." Instead you cite "A spell’s description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect" and say... "see, see! The point of origin has to be the target..." as if there aren't 2 other options.
Why do weNo, this is all incorrect. The target of the catapult spell is an object. The entire description is about the object. It makes a note of what happens if the object happens to strike a creature, but it doesn't have to. This object could be sent flying into a castle gate or a wooden crate or a pool of water. Any creatures who might be affected by this spell are not targeted at all. Notice the phrasing: "If the object would strike a creature", which is deliberate.
And this wording is deliberate.
"On a failed save, the object strikes the target and stops moving. When the object strikes something, the object and what it strikes each take 3d8 bludgeoning damage."
It says you can make it hit a target, and that target can be a creature or object. You have no reason to say it's in error other than to save your interpretation. My explanation is completely consistent. It targets the object, then the creature it object (if chosen). "Nuh uh, it's in error" isn't an argument.
Why do weCompare this against a spell like Magic Stone: In that case, the target is also an object and the Range is "Touch". Then: "You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling. If thrown, it has a range of 60 feet." -- "On a hit, the target takes bludgeoning damage". In this case, the spell is making explicit changes which make it clear that during the 1 minute duration the spell effect can become a spell that directly targets a creature. A new range is properly defined for this portion of the spell effect. In this case, the term "target" is used correctly. This is never an AoE spell -- it becomes a spell that directly targets a creature with a ranged spell attack.
That case is clear that the creatures make a range spell attack with the stones. This has to be explicit this way because the stones remain for longer than a turn. Using them is a ranged spell attack separate from the spell's casting. But for catapult, launching the object is part of the spell's immediate effect. The target is not of a separate attack, it's all the same. There's a different between casting magic stones and throwing them, just as there's a difference between casting Dragon's breath and using it. But there's not a difference between casting catapult and hitting something with it. That's part of the spell, not a separate action.
This is an invalid example because we need a single melee weapon attack within 5 feet targeting a single creature, not a spell attack where you could make multiple attacks to the same target (also, important: Magic Missile is not an attack)
What is even the point of this exercise? It's off-topic. Why do we "need a single melee weapon attack" and why do we care if the spell is an attack or not? The War Caster Feat does not require any of those things. I've already provided two examples of spells which would work for War Caster that are not Twinnable.
You provided two incorrect examples, yes. Those examples don't work like Booming Blade at all.
And now, you (only you, not the D&D 5e rules) are saying that you can't specify a Range for the following spell to work with War Caster but not be Twinnable, right? So, according to your own incorrect rules, this variation of the spell isn't possible in the world of D&D.
---
Casting Time: 1 action Range:[put here a range that allows the spell to benefit from the War Caster feat but not from Twin Spell] Components: S, M (a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp) Duration: 1 round
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. If the target willingly moves 5 feet or more before then, the target takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends.
---
Solution: the currently official Booming Blade spell.
Glad we're in agreement on this.
I thought it was quite clear. My simple argument is that a target must be affected by the effect of the spell. Therefore, if a creature is not affected by the spell, it cannot be considered as a target for the spell. I had presented two side by side quotes from you, where you both said that it doesn't matter whether the caster is affected by the spell, and also agreeing that the target must be affected by the spell. Do you really not see the conflict? If the caster isn't affected by the magic of booming blade in any case, success or failure, then the caster cannot be a target of the spell. That's according the the target section we've been looking at.
Concerning the range, I've pointed out numerous times the range is not self. It is self (5-foot radius). This means the target can be anywhere within 5 feet of the caster. The target eligibility is not merely limited to the caster alone since self (x-foot y) is quite different from simply self.
I'll put aside the issue of whether affected creatures within an AOE are considered targets (although this seems to be how they are treated). But notice the difference between what you said and what is in the PHB. You said "when that happens that creature is the target." There is nothing that says the point of origin is de facto the spell's target. Notice how your reference tells you what can be targeted; a creature, object, or point of origin. It does not say that a point of origin is always the spell's target. We need to look at the description to see if it is.
And this is where it seems as if you're talking on both sides of your mouth... On the one hand you say "of course the spell affects the caster..." and on the other hand you say "no, it doesn't affect the caster... nor does it need to..." At this point I think the only productive thing is to get you to address my syllogism.
1. PHB chapter 10 under targeting says "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 (described below)."
2. The description of the booming blade spell has magical effects that only affect the attack target. No magical effect affects the caster.
3. Therefore the booming blade spell only targets the attack target.
The conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. Either you disagree with one or more premise, or you accept the conclusion. There is no alternative. Since premise 1 is just quoting the PHB, I presume you will disagree with premise 2. Whatever your contention is, try your best to explain why this 3 step argument fails.
A fireball, targets a point of origin within a range of 150 feet where the ball of fire erupts. Range is where the effect originate from.
Once it does, "each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."
In other words, targets aren't strictly related to spell's origin, but within it's effect too. For fireball, the target taking fire damage is not the point of origin but creature.
And if as the caster you're in it, you can target yourself too because area of effect target creatures that are affected by the spell's magic.
I realize that this post has gotten long and I apologize for that -- a lot of different people have lots of various questions about this topic, so I am just trying to respond to each of those as time permits . . .
Ah, ok I see now where some of you are going wrong here. What you've described above is not what the Targets section is saying.
The whole point of casting a spell is that you are trying to affect something with that spell's magic. In order to do that, you aim it somewhere when you cast it. That's all that sentence means.
There are three things that can be affected by a spell's magic: Creatures, Objects and Areas. The purpose of an AoE spell is to affect an area.
There are three things which can be targeted to achieve this purpose: Creatures, Objects and "a point of origin for an area of effect".
In other words, to affect an area with the spell's magic, you target that area's point of origin. That is the rule.
Once the area is affected by the spell's magic, creatures within that area might also be affected -- in the manner described by the particular spell.
That is why your conclusion that "Therefore, if a creature is not affected by the spell, it cannot be considered as a target for the spell" is incorrect, and why I keep telling you that this doesn't matter for the purposes of determining the target of the spell. Once again, we have Burning Hands: Range: self (15-foot-cone) -- "a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips." and also: "A cone extends in a direction you choose from its point of origin . . . A cone's point of origin is not included in the cone's area of effect, unless you decide otherwise." So, in that case the spellcaster himself is the target but he is not affected by the spell's magic.
Ok, this is just flat out wrong. You really are going to need to get past this if you're interested in playing by the rules because the concept of range is vital to spellcasting. The target of a spell must be within range and the range is indicated in the range portion of the "range (area)" parameter. The range gives you the options for the valid targets of your spell. The area describes the size and shape of the area of effect that is created by that spell -- that area of effect affects the area in the manner described.
It does say this, if and only if we are talking about an AoE spell. It says that one of your options for your target is "a point of origin for an area of effect". For an AoE spell, you are not attempting to affect specifically selected creatures or objects, you are attempting to affect an area, so for those spells the point of origin is the target. Of course, tactically, a spellcaster might attempt to affect an area that happens to have some creatures standing within it, but that's not the same thing with respect to understanding what the spell itself is actually doing.
Ok, since you're asking, I'll give it a shot. I disagree with the premise and also the conclusion. For all points, remember that "a spell's description" includes its parameters. I've previously quoted that rule.
For point #1, the description tells us that the target is the origin point for an AoE and it tells us that the range is self. The explanation of the spell effect tells us that only one creature can be affected by this particular AoE (remember, it's a cantrip, it's a very weak AoE spell) because in order to be affected by the AoE, the creature must be successfully attacked by the weapon which created the AoE.
For point #2, the magical effect could affect the spellcaster if the spellcaster is the creature being attacked. And yet, again, whether or not the spellcaster is affected by the AoE is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the spellcaster or the spellcaster's location can be the target of the spell. See the Burning Hands example above.
For point #3, the conclusion is incorrect. Booming Blades does not and can not target the attack target. The target of a spell must be within range.
For a moment it seemed like you were on the right track, but this is incorrect. Self (5 ft) means there is a restriction on where the spell can be cast (the target of the spell) and also there is a restriction on its affected creatures to be within 5 ft of the point of origin. Remember, range and area are two different things. One determines valid targets, the other determines what is affected by the area of effect.
Let's quickly address your examples:
Thunderwave does not refer to affected creatures as targets. The target is the spellcaster "sweeps out from you". The spell affects a cube. The origin point of a cube is along one of its faces and is not included in the AoE.
Booming Blade is tricky because the word "target" is used. But this refers to the target of an attack which occurs as part of the spell's effect. That's not the target of the spell. Rules for attack targets are different from the rules for spell targets (Chapter 9 vs Chapter 10).
You are absolutely correct that Fireball targets a point in space. The text also DOES refer to the affected creatures as targets in this case, which is one of about 4 or 5 AoE spells in the game that is written this way out of over 100 AoE spells. This usage of the word is inconsistent with the rules for spellcasting. At best, we could consider this to be a specific vs general exception to the rule.
Sleet Storm does not target the entire area itself. It targets a point in space ("a point you choose within range"). Affected creatures are not referred to as targets by this spell.
Transmute Rock is a cube and all cube AoE spells have a point of origin, which is the target of the spell. Affected creatures are not referred to as targets by this spell.
Slow is a cube and all cube AoE spells have a point of origin, which is the target of the spell. In this case, you select up to 6 creatures to be affected by the AoE. The AoE is filled with a spell effect that "alters time around" the selected creatures. The game refers to this selection process as targeting, which isn't actually the target of the spell, strictly speaking, but it's much more in line with the rules than the blunder that was made with the Fireball spell. In the Fireball spell, the AoE is clearly an indiscriminate effect -- an explosion. In the case of slow, the spellcaster must specifically select which creatures will be affected, so it's understandable to refer to those creatures as targets of that selection process, even though those creatures are not directly affected by the casting of the spell, they are affected by the resulting AoE.
Phantasmal Force is one where the online entry for the spell really shouldn't include the cube in the range parameter -- that's just an error made by whoever transcribed the spell into the online format. If you notice, a lot of hardcopy versions do not include the area directly into the parameter -- this was added later when porting the spells online. This spell targets a creature that is within range directly, it's not an AoE spell. The cube is just the maximum size of the illusion that is created and that cube can be placed anywhere that the creature can perceive, perhaps even a mile or more up in the air or whatever. It doesn't have to be within range and therefore the cube has nothing to do with being the target of the spell.
Steel Wind Strike is just not an AoE spell and it does not use the range (area) notation. The spell directly targets up to 5 creatures within range. The spell effect involves making a "melee spell attack" on each target. Mechanically, this spell is a lot closer to a spell like Magic Missile -- it's just melee instead of ranged.
Antipathy/Sympathy has explicit language that explains what can be targeted. The "area" portion of the "range (area)" parameter is included for those times when you are casting the AoE version of the spell. When you cast the AoE version of the spell, the target is a point in space which creates the origin point for a cube. It uses the language that you "target an area", but we know from the rules for Chapter 10 precisely how this is done for AoE spells -- you target the origin point to create an AoE that fills the area that you are trying to affect with the spell's magic.
Blade Barrier is not a "typical spell" since the size and shape of the AoE are not defined in advance and do not conform to one of the 5 standard shapes. Therefore, the "area" portion of that parameter is left out. But we know that an AoE is created by reading the rest of the description. Let's take a quick look at this rule:
So, in the case of Blade Barrier, you do target a point in space to create the AoE. Also, there is this rule: "Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise." In this case, the description DOES say otherwise, so the entire AoE must be within the range for this particular spell.
Nobody ever said that this parameter "determines" the exact targets. But in terms of those restrictions that you speak of, the most fundamental one is that the target of the spell must be within range. So, when a spell directly targets a creature with a range of self, then the spellcaster IS the target. If a spell is an AoE spell with a range of self, the target must be either the spellcaster or the spellcaster's location. Otherwise, you are breaking the rule for the range of a spell.
I disagree with this. The Targets subsection of the Casting a Spell section of the Spellcasting chapter defines the concept of spell targeting for the game. If other rules and features happen to refer to this concept, it is their job to remain consistent with this general rule, not the other way around.
On that point, the rest of the general rules throughout Chapter 10 that closely interact with the rules for targeting actually are consistent with the Targets subsection, including the rules for Range and the rules for Areas of Effect. Approximately 95 out of 100 AoE spells are written in a manner that is consistent with these general rules.
That's just not the general rule for spell targeting though. I understand that the Fireball spell uses that wording, but that is inconsistent with the general rule.
As for the bit about "you can target yourself" -- that line is just incredibly poorly worded. Among other things, "you can" indicates that this is somehow optional. As if you can be standing within the blast radius of your own Fireball spell and decide whether or not you want to be affected by it. That's nonsense. They were attempting to say something else entirely with that line and they completely butchered it.
This is incorrect. The whole point of targeting something with a spell is to affect it with the spell's magic. The way that a point in space is affected by the spell's magic is that an area of effect is created there. The area of effect then affects anything that it comes into contact with according to whatever is described by the spell. That's why one of the choices given for targeting is "a point of origin for an area of effect". You are trying to create an area that affects creatures in the manner described. The method for doing so is to target the point of origin. You guys are overcomplicating that concept.
Area spells do not only affect their targets because sometimes creatures will be affected by the resulting area of effect. Once created, areas of effect affect creatures, they don't target them. To create the area of effect in the first place you target the point of origin with the spell. That's the effect of the spell -- to create the area of effect. Whether or not there is a creature anywhere in the vicinity is irrelevant to what the spell is actually doing. The spell is creating an area of effect. That's it.
Yes, exactly! This is why the text of the Fireball spell is erroneous. It's not consistent with the general rules for spellcasting or the 95% of other AoE spell descriptions. It also is not making a clear specific vs general exception to the rules. So the result is that under that interpretation indeed those creatures would be unaffected since they cannot be targeted (targets must be within range). I mean, you could play it that way I guess, but why would you want to? The whole point of the other rule that says "Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise" is so that the effects aren't limited by its range. Otherwise, we're saying that calling those creatures "targets" IS the spell description saying "otherwise" and so those particular spells like Fireball become nerfed along the edges of the range. I would personally rather have Fireball spells work as intended in my games, treating that one word in its description as a typo. But others can do as they wish.
I totally agree! That is frustrating! That is why for many core game concepts like this one I look at the big picture and factor in all of the many subsections of rules which work together to create the concept, as designed for 5e. When people come along and point out one line of text that is inconsistent with the entirety of the general rule and then claim that that must mean that the rule is something else, it does get exhausting, I totally agree with you there.
Sorry again for the length of this post, I do hope that it is helpful to some people.
When describing the area of effect itself, it makes the most sense to refer to the point of origin or the point in space. You don't use the word "target" to describe a sphere, for example. But when describing the casting of the spell which creates one of these areas of effect, you know that the point of origin is indeed the target of the spell which creates that area of effect because those are the rules for spellcasting.
And no, not almost every rule that talks about targets is talking about creatures affected by a spell when it comes to AoE spells. For all spells as a whole, sure. That's because a majority of all spells do directly target creatures and those creatures are indeed affected by a spell. Magic Missile works like that. But those aren't AoE spells. For that, you have to look only at the rules which govern the casting of AoE spells.
Your examples are false. Does the rule refer to affected creatures as targets? Cone? No. Cube? No. Cylinder? No. Line? No. Sphere? No. Saving Throws? We'll come back to that one. Attack Rolls? We can come back to that also. Combining Magical Effects? No. Targeting Yourself? Sure, if you are the point of origin for the spell you are targeting yourself. That is consistent with the rules. The Chapter on Spells (Chapter 11) does not discuss this at all.
As far as the Saving Throw rule goes from Chapter 10, it's just incomplete. The description given was too brief. Here is that rule:
All of this is consistent with the rules. Indeed, there are lots of spells where the target can make a saving throw. That's because lots of spells directly target one or more creatures. Spells like Poison Spray, Bane, and Blindness/Deafness work like this. This rule simply omits that affected creatures might also be able to make a saving throw. That's because this is the rule for Saving Throws and the concept of how a saving throw works has already been adequately explained. There's no need for it to provide a redundant statement for affected creatures when that's not necessary to understand that sometimes a spell will mention a saving throw, and if so, you do what the spell tells you to do. If you come across a spell like Burning Hands which allows affected creatures to make a saving throw, you simply follow the instructions given in the spell description. It's consistent with how Saving Throws function. You don't somehow say that a creature affected by burning hands doesn't get a saving throw because the rule for saving throw only talks about targets -- the spell tells you that they get a saving throw and so they do. That's literally all this Chapter 10 rule is saying -- it's a heads up that a spell might require a creature to make a saving throw.
The mechanics of how to actually roll a Saving Throw and how to apply proficiencies and other modifiers and so on are all in Chapter 7.
The Attack Roll section in Chapter 10 is similar. It discusses spell attacks and how they differ slightly from regular attacks since they use the spellcasting ability modifier. Otherwise, this is just a heads up that some spell descriptions will call for an attack roll. The rules and mechanics for how to actually make that attack roll are found elsewhere.
Here is that rule:
This is all true and consistent with the rules. And in this case, it's pretty much complete as well because spell attack rolls are pretty much never made as part of an AoE spell. I can't think of any examples of that happening. Booming Blade comes close, but that's not a spell attack, it's a regular attack that is made as part of the spell's effect. So, if we are only talking about spells that directly target creatures then it's perfectly appropriate to use the word "target" in that context.
The spell targeting concept as a whole is clear. I'm not the one cherry picking. I am the one who is discussing the general rules for spellcasting.
I'll try to make this pointed at relevant contention points.
When you say the whole point of casting a spell is to affect something... it's not just something. You're trying to affect the target, that is what makes them a target. Otherwise target is merely devoid of meaning. It's like saying "I make a melee attack against the creature, but the target of my attack is myself since I'm the one swinging my sword."
My point is, just as the first sentence of range defines range, the first sentence of target defines target. As such, affecting it with the spell's magic is a necessary condition for a target. If it's not affected by the spell's magic, it's not a target of the spell. That's why it says you target creatures specifically to affect them with the spell's magic.
This point is crucial because if you're wrong about this, your whole case falls apart. None of it stands if booming blade doesn't target the caster.
It is not at all obvious BB has an AOE. Range would suggest such, but the effect doesn't actually describe anything filling the area. But this aside, even though you're generally right about AOE, this is not a typical spell. When it has a range of self with parentheses, the range no longer tells us what the target is (JC also said this). It tells us that the spell originates from the caster, but can target anyone or even everyone in range.
Since these are the relevant points of the argument, I'll let just let you respond.
Let me clarify the points of contention.
1. Whether targets must be affected by the spell's magic:
Your interpretation seems to suggest that the spell must affect something, but not necessarily the spell target. However, the PHB section on targeting does not support this. The first sentence of the target section clearly states that the targets are to be affected by the spell’s magic. You can't simply hand wave this by claiming it's talking about something other than targets. The rule explicitly connects the concept of targeting to being affected by the spell's magic.
2. The point of origin being necessarily the spell target:
While the point of origin is often a target, nothing in the rules supports the claim that it is always the spell target when the spell has a point of origin. I have provided a citation for my claim. I would need you to do the same for yours. It seems clear that the range "Self (5-foot radius)" means the point of origin is the caster, but the effect indicates the target is the creature hit by the melee attack.
3. Understanding the range and spell effects:
We can't always get all the information we need from the range alone. For instance, with the spell Catapult, you might think you can only use it within 60 feet. However, reading the description shows that you can actually affect a creature 150 feet away with the spell. The specifics in the spell effect can break the norms implied by the range. The range parentheses notation often includes spells with unique mechanics that break these norms.
If you still disagree, consider this: If the creators wanted to design Booming Blade to be eligible for War Caster (by targeting the attack target) yet also restrict it from being twinned (because it doesn't make sense for the metamagic to increase your melee attack speed), how should that spell description be written? In your view, it seems this wouldn't be possible. But the current description of Booming Blade achieves this by targeting the creature hit by the melee attack, making it eligible for War Caster and non-Twinnable.
The first paragraph of the Saving Throws section in Chapter 10 is literally just giving a heads up that a spell description might talk about saving throws, and if so, you just follow the instructions given in the spell description. This paragraph could be entirely stricken from the book and it would have no mechanical impact since spells do what they say and we would be following the instructions given in the spell description anyway. The nuts and bolts of "how saving throws work" is elsewhere. The statement from the rule that "Many spells specify that a target can make a saving throw" is a valid and true statement that is totally consistent with the general rules for spellcasting. It's also true that many other spells specify that an affected creature can make a saving throw. This is not explicitly written into that paragraph but it's true nonetheless -- there are dozens of examples of this in the actual spell descriptions.
It's very little work. All that I have to do is quote the rules and then explain them. It's straightforward because the text in the rules supports what I have been saying.
You are looking in the wrong place. The information comes from the rule for Targets:
And this is often the correct usage of the term because many spells do directly target creatures. Those just aren't area of effect spells except for a few cases where the point of origin actually is a creature.
I modified one word of your statement above which could possibly make this a true statement in the world of D&D. If for some reason I cast a spell that compels me to attack a creature then I have just cast that spell on myself, not on the creature. I make the melee attack against the creature, but the spell is causing ME to do that. I am the target of the spell. The creature is the target of the attack. It's not always that way -- that's just an example of what one hypothetical spell -- let's call it Berzerker -- might actually be doing.
Booming Blade is a bit different than that. Booming Blade is an AoE spell where the AoE is created at the point of the brandishing of the weapon and this causes an effect to fill the surrounding area. If you successfully hit a nearby creature within this area then that creature is affected by the spell.
This is just dead wrong, there's not really a less blunt way to put it. This seems to be coming from a misinterpretation of what the Targets rule is actually saying. For reference, let's list that rule again here:
This text is telling you that the whole purpose / motivation / reason to cast a spell is to attempt to affect something with the spell's magic. In order to do this, you are required to pick / choose / select / determine / dare-I-say . . . target that thing so that you can cast the spell at it. What exactly is that "something" allowed to be? The rule provides exactly 3 options for what can be targeted by a spell:
1. Creatures
2. Objects
3. A point of origin for an area of effect
Those are the only 3 valid choices for what can be targeted in the entire game. Whatever you are trying to affect with the spell's magic is required to be on that list.
This rule does NOT state or even imply in any way that it is a necessary condition for something to be affected by the spell in order for it to be a target. It simply does not say that. There are so many examples of why this cannot be true.
Example: I target a creature with a Sacred Flame spell. It passes its Dexterity Saving Throw. Result? NO effect. Or perhaps more precisely -- no one was affected by the spell. Does that mean that the creature was not targeted by the spell? Of course not. The creature was the target.
Example: I cast Burning Hands on myself, targeting myself to create a point of origin at my location. "a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips. Each creature in a 15-foot cone must make a Dexterity saving throw." But the point of origin is not included in a Cone's Area of Effect so the spellcaster is not affected by this spell.
Whether or not a creature is affected by the spell has nothing at all to do with whether or not that creature is a target of the spell.
I do agree with you there -- this spell could have been more clearly written. The major clue is in the notation for the Range (area) of the spell, but it should be more obvious than it is. My hunch about why this happened is that a lot of the text was just carried over from the previous version of the spell pre-errata which DID target a creature within a range of 5 feet. When the errata changed this functionality in 2020 the text should have been cleaned up a bit more to better reflect that change.
This is all a true statement. But targeting everyone in range when we are talking about a range of self can only be the spellcaster or the spellcaster's location -- otherwise, you are trying to target a creature that is outside of the range, which is against the rules.
I might be losing track of what you are arguing. No one said that area spells cannot involve attack rolls.
The wording for ice knife is fully consistent with the general rules for spellcasting. This starts out as a spell which directly targets a creature with a ranged spell attack. This creature also becomes the origin point of the AoE. The creature is the target. The text goes on to say "The target and each creature within 5 feet of it must succeed". This is fully consistent. The creature is the target. Other creatures that are affected by the AoE are simply referred to as creatures.
Storm Sphere is also talking about a ranged spell attack, so the spell is directly targeting these creatures -- they don't even have to be within the AoE. The use of the term "target" in this spell is consistent with the general spellcasting rules.
Wall of Light seems to have very similar mechanics to Storm Sphere. I find the usage of the term "target' to be consistent here as well -- the spell refers to creatures as creatures when interacting with the AoE and as targets when they are directly attacked by the spell. Very carefully and deliberately written with the proper targeting concept in mind as is the case with about 95% of all spells.
Yes, that's obvious. The spell doesn't have to say this because it's a general rule for spellcasting from Chapter 10. We cannot expect every spell description to cut-and-paste the entirety of Chapter 10 of the PHB directly into the text for the spell. That's the idea behind general rules -- they are in one place, and you refer back to them as the situation demands.
This was already covered earlier so I'll skip this one for now since this post is already getting long again.
This is mainly from the rule for Targets: One of the 3 options given for what you are allowed to target is: "a point of origin for an area of effect". In other words, for an area of effect, the target is a point of origin.
Other rules that support this concept include:
"The target of a spell must be within the spell's range"
combined with:
"Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise."
The only way that the Fireball spell functions correctly near the edge of the range is if the target is a point in space. And the only way to cast a spell with a range of self is to cast the spell on the spellcaster or his location.
There is also this:
"Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts"
and
"A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin"
and
"You select a sphere's point of origin, and the sphere extends outward from that point"
Taken together, the core game concept is that you pick a point in space to cast your spell at -- that point in space is affected by the spell's magic insofar as it creates an origin point for an AoE which erupts and expands to fill the defined space. Once this is done, the spell has now been cast. The targeting process is complete. What remains now is an effect within a defined space for the duration which may or may not (often indiscriminately) affect creatures who interact with it. These creatures are not affected by the casting of the spell per se, they are collateral damage from an AoE that is created.
For example, I might position my Fireball at a specific location by targeting a certain place. I accidentally catch one of my friendly allies in the blast and I also happen to damage a creature who was hiding around the corner that I didn't even know about. It's sort of silly to consider those two creatures to be targeted by me under those circumstances.
In the case of the Catapult spell, the creature is not the target of the spell, the object is. The word "target" is used erroneously in that spell. It's not an AoE spell either -- the object is directly targeted by the spell. The object must be within the range. No norms are broken in terms of the range. The range parentheses notation has a standard meaning that applies to all spells -- it's the range of the spell, followed by the size and shape of the created area of effect in parentheses. This area of effect is created by targeting the point of origin with the spell.
Hopefully I've successfully answered some of your questions!
Is that sentence a bad joke?
The word target in Catapult is as accurate, valid, and correct as it is in Booming Blade or any other spell. And the reason is because you cannot always infer the target just by reading the parameter Range. You need to read the entire spell entry to understand each spell fully.
Just for the record, this sentence from XGtE (p. 85):
You should also answer the question alexdohm9191 asked you:
The rule states that the purpose of targeting with a spell is to attempt to affect the target with the spell's magic. This distinction is crucial because it defines why you choose a target—to subject it to the spell's effects. The rule defines a target as the entity selected to be affected by the spell's magic. This definition is clear and forms the basis of understanding how spells operate in the game.
The rule states that targeting involves selecting entities to be affected by the spell's magic. This implies that the intention to affect is inherent to the act of targeting itself.
So... Your response to me saying "You're trying to affect the target, that is what makes them a target" is an example where the spell fails? Perhaps you need to listen a little more.
Your example with the failed saving throw doesn’t refute this—it underscores that targeting involves intending to affect the chosen entity with the spell’s magic, regardless of the outcome. The act of targeting remains about selecting who or what to affect with the spell's effects.
I'm glad you agree with the ambiguity of the spell. However, despite this lack of clarity in the description, the intent behind targeting with Booming Blade remains consistent. The spell targets a creature for its initial attack and provides additional consequences if that target moves, rather than affecting an area with its magic.
I understand your point about the interpretation of the spell's range. While Booming Blade has a range of self (5-foot radius), indicating it originates from the caster, the parentheses typically denote an AOE. However, in this spell's case, the crucial point is that the spell's effect specifies targeting a creature for the initial attack, not targeting the caster or the caster's location. This targeting is what determines the eligible target under the spell's mechanics, regardless of the range notation.
Therefore, despite the range notation, Booming Blade's intent is to target a creature with its initial attack, making that creature the eligible target according to the spell's specific rules. It shouldn't be novel for you to see exceptions to rules, given there's a "specific beats general" rule.
Your interpretation hinges on the concept that for spells with an AOE, the target is the point of origin from which the spell's effect expands. While this concept applies to many AOE spells like Fireball, it doesn't universally dictate how all spells, especially single-target spells like Booming Blade, determine their targets. The rules you've cited generally apply to AOE spells, where the point of origin is indeed crucial in determining the spell's area of effect. However, for single-target spells like Booming Blade, the target selection is distinct. The spell's effect focuses on affecting that chosen target, not the point of origin or the caster's location. So Booming Blade operates differently due to its specific targeting rules for single creatures.
In the context of Catapult, the term "target" is used to describe the creature that might be struck by the launched object. This usage is not erroneous but reflects how the spell involves potential interaction with creatures based on the trajectory and impact of the launched object. It signifies the potential outcome of the spell’s effect rather than designating the creature as the primary target in the spell’s casting. In essence, while Catapult's use of "target" for the struck creature isn't erroneous, it exemplifies how spells like Booming Blade can also target creatures through unique mechanics that extend beyond conventional range notations, focusing on specific interactions and effects within the game's mechanics.
It’s important to address the core question I posed earlier:
This question cuts to the heart of how spell mechanics and targeting are designed in D&D. The current description of Booming Blade effectively targets the creature hit by the melee attack, aligning it with War Caster eligibility while excluding it from being twinned due to its unique mechanics. If you believe this approach is insufficient or impractical, I'm interested in hearing if there’s a method to achieve this balance without resorting to inelegant solutions like explicitly listing ineligibility for Twin Spell in the spell's effect.
Also I forgot to address one of your examples.
In this scenario, the caster serves as the point of origin for the cone-shaped area of effect. It's crucial to note that, as per the PHB,
The caster's hands serve as the point of origin for the spell. This means the flames emanate from the caster's position, spreading out in a cone shape.
In this context, the targets are creatures within the 15-foot cone who are potentially affected by the spell's effects. These targets are not chosen beforehand but are determined by their positions relative to the cone's area when the spell is cast.
If the spell's range were simply "Self" without any direction or area of effect specified, it would be unclear how the spell's effect is manifested. However, spells like Burning Hands specify in the effect that a cone of fire extends from the caster's outstretched fingertips in a chosen direction. This directional aspect reflects the caster choosing a point of origin (themselves) for the spell's effect, which then affects creatures within the cone's area. Thus, while the caster is the point of origin, the spell's effect targets creatures within the cone, not the caster themselves.
No, that's not a joke. The range of the catapult spell is 60 feet. It says: "Choose one object weighing 1 to 5 pounds within range that isn’t being worn or carried. The object flies . . ."
The target of this spell is this object. You are casting a spell on the object, which causes it to do something. The rest of the text makes that extremely clear -- it's all about what happens to the object when various things happen to it such as impacting a solid surface or striking a creature. For example, you could use this spell to bombard and attempt to damage sections of a castle wall or gate. The sentence "On a failed save, the object strikes the target and stops moving" is literally an error. It should say: "the target object strikes the creature and stops moving".
This hypothetical serves little purpose but since people are interested, I'll give it a shot.
Based on the wording of the War Caster Feat and the Twinned Spell Metamagic Feature, the only way to be eligible for War Caster and not Twinned Spell is if you cast a spell at a creature that targets only that creature but is capable of targeting more than one creature. An example of this would be to cast Magic Missile at the creature and only that creature. This spell is not an AoE spell -- it directly targets creatures. It is eligible for War Caster but is not eligible to be Twinned.
No, this isn't what you said and that's not what I was responding to. If that's actually what you meant, then that is a different story.
What I responded to was this:
" affecting it with the spell's magic is a necessary condition for a target. If it's not affected by the spell's magic, it's not a target of the spell."
and as I said, there is no such condition and it does not matter at all if the target is affected by the effects created by the AoE.
For an AoE spell, you are attempting to fill an area with a magical effect and by extension you are attempting to affect the point of origin by creating an AoE at that point. In the specific case where a creature IS the point of origin of an AoE spell (such as for Burning Hands), that creature is affected by magic in the sense that an AoE is erupting straight out of him -- that's a pretty magical thing to have happen to someone. In this case, flames are shooting straight out of the dude's hands. But in this case, by rule, the point of origin is not actually within the Area of Effect and therefore the point of origin (whether it's a creature or not) cannot be affected by the effect that's created by the AoE itself. It's only affected by the casting of the spell such that an AoE is created there.
No. The spell used to work like that. It was specifically and deliberately changed via errata in 2020. If you want this functionality, just use the old version of the spell.
You almost have it here. But the parentheses always denote an AoE. That's the standard notation used throughout the game. You are correct that the spell's effect specifies targeting a creature for the initial attack. This is part of the spell effect, it's not the target of the spell. It's not a spell attack originating from the casting of the spell, it's a regular weapon attack that the spell compels YOU (the spellcaster) to make as a part of the spell's effect.
For the Booming Blade spell to do what you are thinking, the range would be different and the description would instruct you to make a spell attack against a target creature. (This is partly why JC is saying that the original range for the spell was "wrong").
It does universally dictate how all AoE spells work -- it's the general rule for spellcasting AoE spells. The spell would have to make a very explicit specific vs general exception in order for these mechanics to work differently. An example of a spell that sort of does this was the ice knife spell suggested earlier -- in that case you are specifically directly targeting a creature within range with a spell attack first -- then the AoE erupts from that point. Nothing like this is happening with the Booming Blade spell.
The fact that the AoE in Booming Blade is restricted to only being able to affect one creature is irrelevant to how the mechanics of AoE spells function. This spell is a cantrip, so the AoE is not very powerful.
Your comment about Burning Hands:
This is absolutely positively NOT how spells such as Burning Hands work. The range of the spell is "self" and the target must be within range. It's also an AoE spell, which means that the target of the spell is the origin point of the AoE. The choice here is between the spellcaster himself and the spellcaster's location. The text for the spell effect confirms that the cone erupts directly out of the spellcaster himself in this case.
Creatures who happen to be standing within the area that is filled by the Cone are not targets of the spell. They are not within range and they are not the origin point of the AoE. They aren't even specifically selected or aimed at by the spellcaster. The text of the spell never even refers to these creatures as targets -- almost all spells are actually very careful about this for this exact reason.
Your interpretation here is totally inconsistent with the general rules for spellcasting including the rules for Range, the rules for Targets, and the rules for Areas of Effect. Spells like this do not work the way that you are saying.
This is because none of the counter examples actually refute anything that I've said since I am just saying what the actual rules are as they are written. When a counter example fails to refute my point, all I have to do is explain why -- sometimes providing quotes directly from the rules to make the explanation clear. The idea behind this is that once in a while another Forum poster will respond with something like "Oh! I get it now, thank you!" but so far in this thread that hasn't been happening.
I have never "admitted" any such thing since that's not the rule. If we are NOT talking about AoE spells, then yes -- creatures can be targeted directly. But when a creature is standing within an area that happens to be filled with an area of effect and is affected by that effect, that is a passive event that is happening to that creature. It's not being targeted by anything.
For example, if a creature goes for a swim in a frozen lake, it may begin to feel cold. We wouldn't say that the lake is targeting the creature. Likewise, if I fill up my bathtub with ice water and then a creature comes along and lies down within that water in my bathtub and begins to feel cold, we also wouldn't say that I have targeted that creature. A magic spell that fills a space with a particular area of effect is not targeting anything within that area -- the spell targets the point of origin in order to create that area in the first place.
Since you're asking, I do have an explanation for this. It just boils down to simple inconsistency in how some of the rules were written. The reason why this happens is because there are several different authors who are all working on different aspect of various source books, spell descriptions and so on and they are not all on the same page about this game concept that is well defined as a general rule for spellcasting in Chapter 10. Even JC himself often does not seem to be fully aware of the details of every rule in the game -- not just on this topic, but on dozens of other unrelated topics, and this is well documented.
What often happens is that an author will be attempting to describe a separate rule or concept and will just throw in the word "target" as sort of a descriptive catch-all in a colloquial, every-day sort of usage of the term without realizing that this word is an important game term with specific mechanical consequences. The chart in the DMG is a perfect example of this. This author is seemingly unaware that the word "target" is not used in this manner for AoE spells, and he is also trying to create a readable heading for a chart. Calling it something like "Affected Creatures and/or Objects in Areas of Effect" and then using column headers of "Area" and "Number of Affected Creatures and/or Objects" would make for sort of an ugly chart. So, he picks a catch-all term that sort of describes what he's trying to say. But now, as a consequence, some readers come along and assume that this means that the general rule for spellcasting must be different than what it actually says. As I've said, that's unfortunate.
What this author is sort of implying is that there is a such thing as a "target" of an area of effect that is completely separate from the target of a spell (remember, the target of a spell MUST be within range, among other things). If that were true, it would become extremely confusing and cumbersome to constantly have to figure out which version of "target" is meant when interacting with all sorts of Feats, Features and other game mechanics which refer to the term. This would also be totally inconsistent with what is actually written in the general rules for spellcasting in Chapter 10 and how almost all spell descriptions are written.
That is why I refer to text like this as "erroneous", since simply using a word like "inconsistent" doesn't seem to quite be enough to describe it. It's FAR better to just refer to affected creatures of an AoE as affected creatures, since that's what they are.
That doesn't really answer the question. Allowing it to target more than one creature makes it ineligible for war caster. The reason it works with war caster is because it targets the attack target. The reason it doesn't work with twin spell is because it has self included in the range. The question is whether you can make it both eligible with war caster and ineligible with twin spell. So the point is to take for granted that booming blade is supposed to target the attack target but disqualify itself from twinning because of the self range, while still doing what the spell effect says.
Both statements were in the quote box ON YOUR POST... You can't lie when the record is public. I said both of those things. I was obviously talking about affecting the creature in the case of success... And I have said this repeatedly throughout this thread. There is no way you didn't notice... YOU QUOTED ME IN THIS RESPONSE!
There's the proof... Now STOP QUOTE MINING ME! I will not tolerate it.
I have thoroughly addressed this.
The point of targeting is to affect the target with the spell's magic. If it can't, meaning it is unable, then it's not a target. What exactly would be the point of targeting something with a spell if that target is not what you're affect with the magic of the spell? Affecting is connected to targeting. You have not refuted this.
The range "self" indicates that the caster is the origin point of the spell's effect, but this doesn't make the caster the primary target of the spell. Instead, it means the spell is cast from the caster’s position, affecting an area extending outward. The term "self" in the range specifies where the spell originates, not necessarily who or what is directly targeted by the spell. The rules for Areas of Effect (AoE) specify that a spell affects creatures or objects within the defined area, which is consistent with how Burning Hands operates. The cone's area includes all creatures within it who must make a saving throw against the spell’s effects. Jeremy Crawford has provided clarifications indicating that creatures affected by an AoE spell like Burning Hands are not the primary targets but are affected by being within the spell's area.
The spell description of Burning Hands specifies that "Each creature in a 15-foot cone must make a Dexterity saving throw." This aligns with the AoE mechanics where creatures within the cone are affected by the spell but are not individually targeted beforehand. This distinction is critical for understanding how AoE spells function. Your interpretation that the spellcaster or their location is the sole target is incorrect. The correct interpretation is that the spellcaster is the point of origin, and the creatures within the cone are affected by the spell, aligning with the rules for Range, Targets, and AoE. This understanding is consistent with other AoE spells, where the effect spreads from a point of origin and affects all within the specified area.
You have failed to provide any source which says the point of origin is always the spell target when one is indicated. I have provided my source as to why a target of the spell is meant to be affected by the spell's magic. You need to prove your case, not just repeat it. The caster’s hands serve as the point of origin for Burning Hands, and the flames indeed emanate from the caster's position, spreading out in a cone shape. The creatures within the cone are affected by the spell and must make a Dexterity saving throw, but they are not the initial targets chosen by the caster. They are determined by their position within the cone when the spell is cast.
Jeremy Crawford has provided clarifications on the self parentheses notation. The spell description of Burning Hands specifies that "Each creature in a 15-foot cone must make a Dexterity saving throw." This aligns with the AoE mechanics where creatures within the cone are affected by the spell but are not individually targeted beforehand. This distinction is critical for understanding how AoE spells function. Your interpretation that the spellcaster or their location is the sole target is incorrect. The correct interpretation is that the spellcaster is the point of origin, and the creatures within the cone are affected by the spell, aligning with the rules for Range, Targets, and AoE. This understanding is consistent with other AoE spells, where the effect spreads from a point of origin and affects all within the specified area.
The term "target" as used in the spell's description is not erroneous. The spell has a multi-target effect: first, it targets the object within range, and then it targets a creature within a different range (up to 90 feet from the object). The range notation in the spell block can't capture this complexity because the second range is with respect to the object, whereas the range in the block is always with respect to the caster. But this is why it has to be explicitly stated in the spell's effect. And this example serves to illustrate that spells can have complex effects which cannot be fully captured by the range notation, and in fact, can contradict the range notation. This is why the specific beats general rule exists, not for you to claim it must be erroneous because you know better.
You are providing incorrect information here and confusing people. I have already quoted an official text describing what target is in D&D 5e, as have many others before me:
This is an invalid example because we need a single melee weapon attack within 5 feet targeting a single creature, not a spell attack where you could make multiple attacks to the same target (also, important: Magic Missile is not an attack)
Again, from the video linked by @Plaguescarred:
This thread is a now mess with one person repeating the same incorrect information all the time. I hope visitors will be able to distinguish the correct information.
Why do we need it to be a melee spell? That's not a requirement for War Caster. But if you prefer a melee spell then Steel Wind Strike qualifies. It works with War Caster but is not eligible to be Twinned.
No it doesn't. And in fact, this is the only difference between the requirements for war caster and the requirements for Twinning:
War Caster: "must target only that creature."
Twinned Spell: "To be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level"
Spells with a range of "self" do not work for War Caster and they do not work for Twinned Spell. As soon as you increase the range to be able to work for War Caster, the spell also works for Twinned Spell unless the spell is capable of targeting one or more creatures.
No, it doesn't work with War Caster because it doesn't target the attack target. It literally cannot do this unless the spellcaster targets himself. The spell has a range of "self" and the target of a spell must be within range.
What you are proposing here is not possible because of this reason and because of the reasons I've just stated above.
I'm not even sure why you guys are going down this rabbit hole of the Twinned Spell Feature anyway -- that feels like it's starting to stray off-topic.
Ok, first, just as a broad blanket statement -- not calling anyone out in particular -- I do not like being called a liar. This will not happen to me in the future.
As for your particular claim here, I encourage you to go back and review Post #105 in this thread and look at what I quoted from you immediately before giving my Sacred Flame example.
And again, this is false. This statement does not logically mean that if you are unable to affect the thing that you aimed at that it was not a target. It simply doesn't say that and it doesn't mean that. Furthermore, literally immediately after this statement that you are quoting, the game gives you exactly 3 options for what you are allowed to target in the game, one of which is "a point of origin for an area of effect". If you are trying to affect an area with the spell's magic, you explicitly don't target the area, you instead target "a point of origin for an area of effect". The point of origin itself is also affected by the spell's magic just from the simple fact that an area of effect erupts from that location -- regardless of whether or not this point of origin is actually included within the area of effect that was just created. Any interpretation of this rule which concludes that the point of origin for an area of effect is not a target is false. It's literally one of the three options given and it's the only option that's given "for an area of effect".
Yes, it does. There is no other way to cast the spell. The target of the spell must be within range.
The part about affecting an area is exactly correct. But the range of a spell has nothing to do with where the spell is cast from. It restricts where the spell is cast to.
No, this is false. The rules for Range do not say anything like this. The source of a spell is pretty much always the spellcaster, although sometimes it can be cast from a magic item. The Range of a spell indicates how far away the target is allowed to be:
The spell effect really doesn't come into existence until it has travelled from the source to the target. This "travelling" of the spell while it is being cast but before the spell effect exists is implied by rules like this:
The "travelling" of the spell from the source to the target generally has no mechanical meaning. But some spells will add some flavor to describe it, such as with Magic Missile: "You create three glowing darts of magical force". Others might ignore this which makes this process seemingly imperceptible, such as Minor Illusion: "You create a sound or an image of an object within range".
The point of all of this is that the Range of a spell is not saying anything about the source of the spell, which is usually the spellcaster. The Range restricts how far away the target can be from the source.
Wait, what? This text makes all of the correct and accurate descriptions and then draws the wrong conclusion in the portion that I've highlighted. Yes, creatures within the cone are affected by the spell but are not individually targeted. Yes, the spellcaster is the point of origin and the creatures within the cone are affected by the spell. Yes, this aligns with the general rules for spellcasting. Yes, for AoE spells the effect spreads from a point of origin and affects all within the specified area.
How did we just jump from all of that to saying that the spellcaster is not the sole target of Burning Hands? That makes no sense. Everything else written there supports exactly what I've been saying. The only logical conclusion is that the spellcaster is the target of the Burning Hands spell, which has a range of "self".
When the Burning Hands spell is cast, the spell "travels" from the spellcaster to its target within range, which is the spellcaster himself. Once there, the targeting process is complete and the casting of the spell is complete and the release of the spell effect commences. The point of origin is created and the area of effect erupts and spreads outwards from there, potentially affecting one or more creatures who happen to be somewhere in this area.
I'm sorry if you see it that way. I can only quote all of the general rules for spellcasting that explain the concept so many times. If you want to run your games differently then that's totally fine.
No, this is all incorrect. The target of the catapult spell is an object. The entire description is about the object. It makes a note of what happens if the object happens to strike a creature, but it doesn't have to. This object could be sent flying into a castle gate or a wooden crate or a pool of water. Any creatures who might be affected by this spell are not targeted at all. Notice the phrasing: "If the object would strike a creature", which is deliberate.
Compare this against a spell like Magic Stone: In that case, the target is also an object and the Range is "Touch". Then: "You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling. If thrown, it has a range of 60 feet." -- "On a hit, the target takes bludgeoning damage". In this case, the spell is making explicit changes which make it clear that during the 1 minute duration the spell effect can become a spell that directly targets a creature. A new range is properly defined for this portion of the spell effect. In this case, the term "target" is used correctly. This is never an AoE spell -- it becomes a spell that directly targets a creature with a ranged spell attack.
My only intention with all of this is to help clear up and fully explain some of the rules for spellcasting that are relevant for understanding the Booming Blade spell and why it doesn't properly combo with the War Caster Feat when it comes to the RAW. Nothing more. Hopefully these explanations are helpful.
Wrong example, again.
Booming Blade requires a melee attack and targets only one creature within 5 feet, with no other options in the spell entry.
If you take Steel Wind Strike and change the text to something like:
"You flourish the weapon used in the casting and then vanish to strike like the wind. Choose ONLY ONE creature you can see within range. Make a melee spell attack against that TARGET. On a hit, the TARGET takes 6d10 force damage."
Then it works with War Caster and can be Twinned. And we don't want this. I assume you know how to solve this problem: use the Range you can find in Booming Blade.
Also... hey, Steel Wind Strike says "Make a melee spell attack against each TARGET. On a hit, the TARGET takes 6d10 force damage." According to your own wrong rules, the spell is wrong/erroneous/inconsistent 😒 but obviously, the spell is perfectly fine.
I vehemently disagree with this. Just because you can find some other threads where a different conclusion was drawn does not make me incorrect about what the rules actually say and what they mean. And unless your "official text" comes directly out of the rulebooks then those are not the Rules As Written.
What is even the point of this exercise? It's off-topic. Why do we "need a single melee weapon attack" and why do we care if the spell is an attack or not? The War Caster Feat does not require any of those things. I've already provided two examples of spells which would work for War Caster that are not Twinnable.
As for your developer comment: As has already been established a few times in this thread now, Jeremy Crawford is wrong. He is often wrong about the rules and this fact is absolutely indisputable.
Actually, there are a lot more than one person repeating the same incorrect information all the time. I have been doing my best to help those people correctly understand the topic but I haven't seen too many "Ah ha" lightbulb moments happening from them yet. Oh well, maybe soon!
Additional relevant text:
War Caster:
Booming Blade:
Booming Blade actually targets the spellcaster. It affects a creature within the AoE when that creature is hit with an ordinary melee weapon attack from the weapon that was used as a component in casting the spell.
If you want Booming Blade to behave differently, just use the old version of the spell. But that version of the spell is Twinnable (and why we care about this I still have no idea).
You can't have it both ways. There is no such thing as a spell which can only target a single creature beyond the range of self that is not Twinnable. As I've already quoted, the requirements for working with War Caster and the requirements for a spell to be Twinnable are very similar. I'm not sure what the confusion is here.
I don't get it. I never said that there was anything wrong with Steel Wind Strike. That spell uses the term "target" correctly. That spell is not an AoE spell. It directly targets creatures within the range by making melee spell attacks against them. What is the confusion?
Yeah, I misunderstood you there. That would work with war caster, but it still misses the point. You may think this is pointless, but the reason I'm asking you this is because I don't think it is possible to have the description of Booming Blade with the same effect but that targets the melee target and making it eligible for war caster but ineligible for twin. Your proposed change would indeed fundamentally alter the spell, but the current design avoids this by cleverly using the interaction between spellcasting and melee combat.
Then you need to give a proper interpretation. What does it mean by "targets to be affected by the spell’s magic"? It seems you've only said "well... it affects something... that's all..." no. Not good enough. It's not taking about just something, it's talking about targets. You target something to affect it. That's the aim of targeting. You haven't refuted this. That wasn't a real quote from you BTW.
Yeah, but that's immaterial to the point. No matter what you can target, you are still targeting to affect it with the spell's magic. It can be any of the three, but it still needs to have the intent of being affected by the spell.
That's generally correct... but there's always the caveat... unless the spell says otherwise. General rules always have exceptions, don't forget specific beats general.
5-foot radius is part of the range. Targets can be within 5 feet and within range... Why else would it be in the range block? The point of the range block is to tell you eligible targets, right? So five feet is within range.
You've misunderstood me. I specifically said that the creatures in the aoe are not targeted *beforehand.* They are targets once the AOE has been determined. Obviously you need to first determine the direction of the cone, then the affected targets based on the cone's range. Again, self parentheses is a special category. They don't confirm to typical spell norms.
What would help is if you cites something that actually says what you're saying... something that says "The point of origin is always the target when there is one." Instead you cite "A spell’s description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect" and say... "see, see! The point of origin has to be the target..." as if there aren't 2 other options.
And this wording is deliberate.
"On a failed save, the object strikes the target and stops moving. When the object strikes something, the object and what it strikes each take 3d8 bludgeoning damage."
It says you can make it hit a target, and that target can be a creature or object. You have no reason to say it's in error other than to save your interpretation. My explanation is completely consistent. It targets the object, then the creature it object (if chosen). "Nuh uh, it's in error" isn't an argument.
That case is clear that the creatures make a range spell attack with the stones. This has to be explicit this way because the stones remain for longer than a turn. Using them is a ranged spell attack separate from the spell's casting. But for catapult, launching the object is part of the spell's immediate effect. The target is not of a separate attack, it's all the same. There's a different between casting magic stones and throwing them, just as there's a difference between casting Dragon's breath and using it. But there's not a difference between casting catapult and hitting something with it. That's part of the spell, not a separate action.
You provided two incorrect examples, yes. Those examples don't work like Booming Blade at all.
And now, you (only you, not the D&D 5e rules) are saying that you can't specify a Range for the following spell to work with War Caster but not be Twinnable, right? So, according to your own incorrect rules, this variation of the spell isn't possible in the world of D&D.
---
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: [put here a range that allows the spell to benefit from the War Caster feat but not from Twin Spell]
Components: S, M (a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp)
Duration: 1 round
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. If the target willingly moves 5 feet or more before then, the target takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends.
---
Solution: the currently official Booming Blade spell.