We'll know more with the release of new sorcerer material, but in the playtest, twin spell metamagic had a very specific definition that really cleared up which spells were "twinnable." That isn't to say that emanation won't play into the final product, but I don't think it needs to unless they just want it to. After all, emanation simply explains the possible range of effect. You could have an emanation that affects everything within its AoE or you could have an emanation that establishes a range from which you pick or more targets, but maybe not everyone automatically. It's a good and versatile tool. And it could work for booming blade too. I just don't think it will be used that way.
I suppose you could make booming blade a 5' emanation, in which you choose a single target within range. I don't know if I like that wording, but it could potentially accomplish what I think you are describing. As you say, I do no expect booming blade to be addressed explicitly in the new PHB
I do hope they give BB/GFB a major overhaul in 5.5. They weren't mentioned in the spells video, so I assume they haven't been added to the PHB
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
What do you mean? You don't get to choose. The spell's description tells you which category for a target is used.
I obviously know this. What I meant was that Booming Blade could target a creature (by effect) and be consistent with this targeting rule, because it only says you target one of the listed three.
No, the spell is telling you that it's an AoE spell, even if the flavor of what happens doesn't look like it. The online parameter clearly notes an Area and the spell text itself was changed via errata to say that you must choose a creature "within 5 feet of you" instead of "within range". The spell is telling which type of spell this is. The way in which a creature is affected involves being the target of an attack, but the spell isn't targeting the creature. It's targeting self. As mentioned, perhaps this mechanic is being changed in the future, but in the 2014 rules, this is how it works.
So basically, magic is everywhere and we can harness it for a specific purpose by casting a spell. Fine.
Ironically, this works against your explanation of Booming Blade. Magic is everywhere in everything… so how do you “fill an area with magic” using a spell? It's already filled with magic, the spellcaster just needs to utilize the Weave to manifest it to their whim. So essentially your AoE explanation for Booming Blade was completely vacuous.
It doesn't work against anything, it's part of the bigger picture of the spellcasting system, which is why I presented all of this together. The raw magic is everywhere, but you can only harness it by casting a spell. You are filling an Area with a spell effect. The effect that you put in there is referred to as an Area of Effect. By putting it in there, you have successfully affected the Area that you were trying to affect with your AoE spell.
Since this entire section is talking about where you are allowed to target your spell, the spell must target self to remain in accordance with the rules, and the fact that the range of self "indicates" that the origin point must be here also means that the target of the spell must be the origin point of the Area of Effect (as has already been established previously when learning about the 3 options for the valid categories of targets).
Amazing… so because it doesn't actually say the point of origin is the target, you're forced to insert it in there. But no… this section isn't meant to explain targets, it's meant to explain range. In doing so, they listed some different range scenarios and defined them in terms of range. It listed one scenario and said that means the range is self. It then listed another scenario and said that's also a range of self. If it wanted to say the point of origin is a target there, it would have said so. Inserting that in there is not RAW.
This is false. Targeting is fully tied together with the concept of Range because that's what the word Range MEANS. It's literally the maximum distance between the source of the spell and the target of the spell. The section then goes on to explain what some different types of ranges are that we might encounter in the game. Let's look again:
Range
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range. For a spell like magic missile, the target is a creature. For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts.
Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.
Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell's effect must be you.
This entire section is literally discussing where you are allowed to target your spell, because that's what the word Range means in this game. It's all right there in the rules for Range.
So, to be even more clear, that twice now that the rules are telling the players that you target the point of origin for your AoE spells. One of those occurs in the rules for Range that I've just quoted above. The other place is in the rules for Targets:
Targets
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect
So, honestly just asking the same basic question over and over when it has been answered dozens of times is the petulant thing to do if we want to start throwing that word around as you just did.
Furthermore, I presented several other extremely core rules for spellcasting that demonstrate quite clearly that the system HAS to work the way that I'm describing, otherwise those rules don't function correctly, such as the clear path rule. Again, big picture. Evidence upon evidence. It's why I presented it all together. There is a reason for the things that I post. I quote the rules that actually exist in the game, and I explain them.
As long as we remember that the point of origin for an Area of Effect is the target of the AoE spell, each and every one of these rules work together in perfect harmony.
So long as you ignore every rule that conflicts with it… like “If you are in the area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself.”
Ok, if you want to ignore the entire 5e system of spellcasting that's been designed and build by clinging to that one single line that incorrectly describes how to handle a corner case, then that's fine with me, go nuts. I've already explained what probably happened with that line. I've also acknowledged several times that there are inconsistencies in the rules and when that happens it's up to the DM to decide the best way to resolve them.
So you didn't answer the question. You just data dumped a bunch of stuff and tried to speculate by inserting assumptions and extrapolate interpretations that aren't explicitly present in the source material.
You've said that an AoE always targets the point of origin. This isn't what the rule is stating. It's saying that when you target the point of origin, it's always an AoE. This doesn’t mean an AoE will always target the point of origin. That would be an affirming the consequent fallacy. You essentially read it backwards.
No, that's wrong. The whole rule needs to be read together. The premise is that every spell has a purpose in that it is trying to affect something with magic -- that's where you target your spell. The spell description tells you which type of spell it is -- what it is trying to actually do. By doing so, the spell description tells you what the target of the spell is required to be.
For example, for a spell like Magic Missile, you are required to target creatures. You cannot target a wall or a mound of dirt or a point in space. This is a requirement. The spell description tells you that the spell's purpose is to affect a creature with magic and that you are required to target that creature.
The same is true for every AoE spell. The purpose of those spells is to fill an area with a spell effect which is referred to as an Area of Effect. To do this, you are required to target that area so that the spell can achieve its purpose.
The rule for Targets is telling you this. It's very clear how it works.
“Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how you position its point of origin.”
The portion where it says "you position" is obviously in cases where you are able to position the point of origin yourself, which we know doesn't apply to self (XYZ). In that case you are always the point of origin, so you target something else. Like creatures. “But you can't target creatures with an AoE” which is started nowhere in the book. To the contrary, creatures are stated targets for AoE spells in several spell descriptions and the targeting yourself section portion of the targets section of chapter 10. So there is RAW support for targeting creatures with an AoE.
This was already explained. This section about Areas does not have to talk about targeting because the mechanism for spell targeting has already been explained in two other places. This section is written from the perspective of the AoE itself that is created by the spell, so it refers to it's point of origin as its location in the world -- it doesn't matter to the AoE itself if that location in the world was targeted by the spell in order to put it there.
Intentionally finding the rules inconsistencies that exist in a few places and claiming that that constitutes "rules support" for a general rule that doesn't exist is the Facepalm that I keep trying to get you to recognize. Those parts of the books are simply attempting to refer back to a general rule -- they are not creating a new general rule at all. Once again, when there is an inconsistency in the rules it is the DM's job to use all of the information that he has to make the best possible ruling.
The fact is, every spell description of an AoE spell will tell you if it's an AoE by using terms in the effect portion.
This is false. The spell's description tells you which type of spell it is for targeting purposes:
A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect
The definition of a spell's description is here:
Casting a Spell
When a character casts any spell, the same basic rules are followed, regardless of the character's class or the spell's effects.
Each spell description begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.
The parameters of the spell and the effect text are equally important. For Booming Blade, the Range/Area entry notes that this is an AoE spell. The effect text includes language which was explicitly changed via errata -- instead of referring to the attack target being "within range", the attack target must now be "within 5 feet of you". All of these aspects of the spell description are telling you which type of spell this is and therefore which category of spell target is required.
I suppose you could make booming blade a 5' emanation, in which you choose a single target within range. I don't know if I like that wording, but it could potentially accomplish what I think you are describing. As you say, I do no expect booming blade to be addressed explicitly in the new PHB, so you would need some kind of new general rule that would implicitly rewrite the range of booming blade and similar spells. I just don't see that happening. In terms of the topic of the thread, I really don't think any emanation information is going to change the way booming blade interacts (or, more accurately, does not interact) with dissonant whispers, though.
If I can make a wish, I would like to see more examples or more detailed rules in the new PHB about how the different Ranges work, specially the Self and Self (XYZ) ones.
The parameters of the spell and the effect text are equally important. For Booming Blade, the Range/Area entry notes that this is an AoE spell. The effect text includes language which was explicitly changed via errata -- instead of referring to the attack target being "within range", the attack target must now be "within 5 feet of you". All of these aspects of the spell description are telling you which type of spell this is and therefore which category of spell target is required.
I'm coming up with a response, but I would like to give you an opportunity here. I said before:
"And lastly, your big argument that Self (5-foot radius) means there's an AoE. You mostly base this off of the Range/Area notation in the app. The problem with this is it isn't official RAW."
You didn't respond to this so I'll let you respond to factor into my final post. Do you agree or disagree that Range/Area notation is not official RAW?
I'm not sure what you mean by official RAW in this context. When we use the acronym "RAW" around here that just stands for Rules As Written. This just refers to the rules as they are actually written down in the rule books for the game.
The Range parameter that exists at the top of the spell block is part of the information for the spell. You'll find no "rule" which tells you about the spell parameters in particular except perhaps for this general rule:
Casting a Spell
When a character casts any spell, the same basic rules are followed, regardless of the character's class or the spell's effects.
Each spell description begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.
To understand the information that's given in the spell parameters, you have to refer back to the general rules. So, the Range parameter, for example, just refers back to the general Range rule from Chapter 10. If you see terms in that parameter such as "touch" or "self", you again have to refer back to the Range rule for the meaning.
As mentioned a couple of times before, the old hardcopy books simply had a parameter called "Range" and for most of the spells the Area information was left out of it.
For example, in the hardcopy book that I'm looking at, the Range entry for the Fireball spell simply says: "Range: 150 feet". But the Area information will always also appear in the text for the effect. In the case of Fireball, the text says "Each creature in a 20-foot radius sphere centered on that point must . . .". This text here for Fireball doesn't actually beat you over the head with the fact that this area is actually filled with any sort of magical effect. All it says is that creatures in that area make a saving throw. So, is this an Area of Effect spell or not? It could technically be interpreted either way, right? Well, no, not really. It turns out that huge numbers of AoE spells in the game are all written with this sort of subtle style. The spell effect mostly focuses on explaining what happens to creatures that are within one of these areas instead of going through a lot of trouble to write some clear and obvious flavor text of what the actual effect is that is filling up the space. Whenever you see any sort of hard-coded area referenced within the text for the effect, there is nearly a 100% chance that the spell is an AoE spell.
Likewise, in the case of Booming Blade, the Area is referenced within the text for the effect of the spell. It mentions something happening "against one creature within 5 feet of you". Just like in the case of the Fireball spell, this text here for Booming Blade doesn't actually beat you over the head with the fact that this area is actually filled with any sort of magical effect. All it says is that the creature must be located within this area. So, is this an Area of Effect spell? Yes. Just like Fireball, this is an Area of Effect spell.
Going back to the parameters now, I'm not totally sure what the very latest printing of the PHB looks like for our Fireball spell example. But, if you pull up the Basic Rules in D&D Beyond and click to Chapter 11: Spells and then scroll down to the Fireball spell, the parameter is still listed as "Range: 150 feet". Because of this, I assume that it has never changed in the hard copy versions of the rules.
But now we also have digital copies of the rules and D&D Beyond databases. If you start at the main page and instead of clicking into the Basic Rules you click on Game Rules -> Spells -> View All . . . now you are on a page that has a searchable and filterable list of all of the spells in the game. If you search for Fireball, you'll find an entry for the Fireball spell. This entry has a summary which contains a data column called "Range/Area". The data given there is "150 ft (20 ft sphere)". If you click to open the full spell description for that spell, you again get the parameter "Range/Area: 150 ft (20 ft sphere)".
Hopefully some of that information was related to the question you are asking -- something about if the parameters are RAW. The above is all of the written information that we have available to us. The spell descriptions sometimes have parameters which indicate an AoE spell and they always have text within the effect which indicates an AoE spell if it is actually an AoE spell. The books should have been more careful and more systematized with how they presented this information, but they weren't.
Going back to the parameters now, I'm not totally sure what the very latest printing of the PHB looks like for our Fireball spell example. But, if you pull up the Basic Rules in D&D Beyond and click to Chapter 11: Spells and then scroll down to the Fireball spell, the parameter is still listed as "Range: 150 feet". Because of this, I assume that it has never changed in the hard copy versions of the rules.
But now we also have digital copies of the rules and D&D Beyond databases. If you start at the main page and instead of clicking into the Basic Rules you click on Game Rules -> Spells -> View All . . . now you are on a page that has a searchable and filterable list of all of the spells in the game. If you search for Fireball, you'll find an entry for the Fireball spell. This entry has a summary which contains a data column called "Range/Area". The data given there is "150 ft (20 ft sphere)". If you click to open the full spell description for that spell, you again get the parameter "Range/Area: 150 ft (20 ft sphere)".
Right, this is whatI'm referring to. The D&D Beyond website has spell descriptions which include Range/Area notation. It's also on the app. It is my understanding that this notation was added to make it easier for players to understand and find information about spells. Officially, the range of a spell is determined by its description in the Player's Handbook (PHB) and other official rulebooks, not by the notation on D&D Beyond.
So, would you agree that this notation is not officially part of D&D rules? Would you say officially the block is just called Range in accordance with the PHB?
I'm not sure if I would agree with that. D&D Beyond is created and run by the same company that publishes the hard copy rules for the game. It's where you get the official digital copies for the same game which has the same content. They've created a link on the site to "Game Rules" which allows you to quickly search for an individual spell listing or class or monster or piece of equipment or magic item among other things which is meant to reference directly back to the actual rules of the game. It provides the same content as you'd get if you flipped through a hard copy of the rules.
For example, if I use that tool to search for the Wizard class, I can see all of the same content for the Wizard class that the Basic Rules provide. Side-by-side I can scroll through the entry in the Basic Rules, the entry in the physical PHB, and the entry in this "Game Rules" search result and every word is identical. However, when I get down to the section on "Quick Build" for the Wizard class, it looks different. In the Basic Rules it is shown as a subheading of Creating a Wizard with its text presented in the same way as in Creating a Wizard. The PHB hard copy looks like that as well. But, in this online "Game Rules" search, this block of text is presented in the Sidebar format, visually separated from the content of Creating a Wizard.
Does this matter for anything? The formatting is different, but the information is identical. Is one of these the "RAW" version? In my opinion, these are all the RAW for the game, even when they look a little different. There can exist slightly more significant inconsistencies than this between these versions of how the rules are presented, but this was the quickest example that I could find. I don't think the format of how the rules are presented makes one the official version and one somehow homebrew. They are both the officially published rules for the game, delivered by the company that owns the game. If there was ever any actual difference in the content between these two versions, then that would have to be reconciled somehow by the DM.
For those who are still in the camp that AoE spells target creatures, can we just quickly run through the exercise of taking a look at the spells that are similar to Fireball which have the simple structure of filling an area with a spell effect that is capable of causing damage to creatures:
Burning Hands: "Each creature in a cone . . . the creature takes damage".
Cloud of Daggers: "A creature takes damage".
Cloudkill: "When a creature enters the area . . . that creature must . . . the creature takes damage . . . creatures are affected".
Cone of Cold: "Each creature in a cone . . . a creature takes damage . . . a creature killed by this spell becomes".
Conjure Barrage: "Each creature in a cone . . . a creature takes damage".
Conjure Volley: "Each creature in a cylinder . . . a creature takes damage".
Delayed Blast Fireball: "Each creature in a sphere . . . a creature takes damage".
Destructive Wave: "Each creature you choose within 30 feet of you must . . . a creature that succeeds . . .".
Fire Storm: "Each creature in the area . . . it takes damage".
Flame Strike: "Each creature in a cylinder . . . the creature takes damage".
Flaming Sphere: "A creature within 5 feet of the sphere . . . the creature takes damage . . . if you ram the sphere into a creature, that creature must . . .".
Freezing Sphere: "Each creature within the area . . . a creature takes damage . . . creatures that were swimming . . . a trapped creature can".
Ice Storm: "Each creature in the cylinder . . . a creature takes damage".
Incendiary Cloud: "Each creature in it must . . . a creature takes damage . . . a creature must also".
Insect Plague: "Each creature in it must . . . a creature takes damage . . . a creature must also".
Lightning Bolt: "Each creature in the line must . . . a creature takes damage".
Meteor Swarm: "Each creature in a sphere . . . a creature takes damage".
Moonbeam: "When a creature enters . . . it takes damage".
Shatter: "Each creature in a sphere . . . a creature takes damage . . . a creature made of".
Spike Growth: "When a creature move into . . . it takes damage . . . any creature that can't see the area".
Sunbeam: "Each creature in the line must . . . a creature takes damage".
Sunburst: "Each creature in that light must . . . a creature takes damage . . . a creature blinded by this spell makes".
Thunderwave: "Each creature in a cube must . . . a creature takes damage".
Weird: "Each creature in a sphere must . . . a creature becomes frightened . . . it takes damage".
* Fireball: "Each creature in a sphere must . . . A target takes damage".
* Circle of Death: "Each creature in that area must . . . A target takes damage".
----------
So, the question is . . . can you explain this?
Judging only from the above text . . . what does it look like the general rule probably is?
----------
Here is another question: How would you reconcile that the following general rules for spellcasting all function as written all at the same time?
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range.
Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise.
A Clear Path to the Target
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
Areas of Effect
Spells such as burning hands and cone of cold cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.
A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover.
Does your interpretation for how targeting works in AoE spells honestly allow all of the above core general spellcasting rules to function correctly all at the same time in every situation?
The "Range/Area" notation on D&D Beyond can be considered official in the sense that it is provided by Wizards of the Coast, the same company that publishes the D&D rulebooks. However, similar to Sage Advice, it serves more as an interpretation and presentation of the rules rather than a modification of the rules themselves.
So if you want to consider the "Range/Area" notation on D&D Beyond official, then likewise you ought to consider Sage Advice official since it's also from the game's designers.
That doesn't really make sense to me. Sage Advice is different. It's not the actual rules of the game. It presents official rulings, interpretations or indications of design intent for the rules, but they are not the Rules As Written.
The D&D Beyond "Game Rules" database presents the actual rules for the game. At most there are some minor formatting differences but the content is identical.
But let's suppose for a moment that the online entries are not RAW content. What point are you making here? The content is identical. Just because the data might be formatted with a heading that is labeled as Range/Area instead of Range doesn't change the content for the spell. That parameter lists the range of the spell and sometimes will include a note about the Area of Effect for the spell in parentheses. Whenever that happens, it will always also be described in the text for the spell's effect.
So, let's go through this again. The size and shape of the AoE IS included in every effect block of every spell where there is an AoE. Look for the hard-coded number -- that's usually a critically important clue towards finding it. The reason why it's always explicitly described within the effect in the first place is because when the game was originally released, they generally didn't put the information about the Area in the spell parameter list -- probably because most spells do not create an Area of Effect, so the entry would just be "N/A" if it were included. But the earliest books did begin the convention of including the Area information in parentheses next to the Range entry for some spells. It would have been better if there was a separate line dedicated to "Area", but they didn't do that. It would have also been better if they had labeled the parameter in question "Range/Area" or "Range (Area)", but they didn't do that either. You just had to realize that that's what was going on when you saw the parentheses in the entry and you read the corresponding text for the Effect and you realize that the description aligns perfectly with the portion of the text that appeared in parentheses in the Range parameter.
So my point is that this argument you're making is relying on unofficial material. It's fine if you want to allow unofficial material from the game designers, that's fine... But then to be consistent you'd have to allow Sage Advice, and then the debate is over.
And as I said before, the "Range/Area" notation on D&D Beyond is considered a quality-of-life improvement rather than an official rules change. This notation was added to make it easier for players to understand and find information about spells. The only thing that would make it official is that it's from the designers, but so is Sage Advice. If it's not in an official rule book or errata, it's not the "actual rules of the game." And if want to only consider what's official RAW, then you can't rely on Range/Area notation of spells in D&D Beyond to prove your point.
Officially, the range of a spell is determined by its description in the Player's Handbook (PHB) and other official rulebooks, not by the notation on D&D Beyond.
Err, I checked out of this particular... debate a long time ago, so maybe I'm missing something, but the notation in the PHB for Self (X) spells is exactly the same in print as it is on DDB. The only difference is the description of the AoE is represented online by a little symbol
So, for lightning bolt, I turn to page 255 in my PHB and it says Range: Self (100-foot line)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
So my point is that this argument you're making is relying on unofficial material. It's fine if you want to allow unofficial material from the game designers, that's fine... But then to be consistent you'd have to allow Sage Advice, and then the debate is over.
And as I said before, the "Range/Area" notation on D&D Beyond is considered a quality-of-life improvement rather than an official rules change. This notation was added to make it easier for players to understand and find information about spells. The only thing that would make it official is that it's from the designers, but so is Sage Advice. If it's not in an official rule book or errata, it's not the "actual rules of the game." And if want to only consider what's official RAW, then you can't rely on Range/Area notation of spells in D&D Beyond to prove your point.
This is false. The correct information has already been explained several times in my previous posts #225, #228 and #231. Continuing to repeat the same false information over and over after the issue has been fully explained multiple times doesn't make it any less false. It only serves to derail the thread.
There's not really a "debate" going on in this discussion. There's basically me knowing the correct information and then there's me trying to explain the information to others in a way that they will understand. It's helpful for the learning process for current and future readers of the thread. I'm here to help. But let's keep things moving along.
The question in the OP is fully resolved. Booming Blade does not function properly with the opportunity attack clause of the War Caster Feat because it's not a spell that is cast at a creature and it is not a spell that targets only that creature.
So my point is that this argument you're making is relying on unofficial material. It's fine if you want to allow unofficial material from the game designers, that's fine... But then to be consistent you'd have to allow Sage Advice, and then the debate is over.
And as I said before, the "Range/Area" notation on D&D Beyond is considered a quality-of-life improvement rather than an official rules change. This notation was added to make it easier for players to understand and find information about spells. The only thing that would make it official is that it's from the designers, but so is Sage Advice. If it's not in an official rule book or errata, it's not the "actual rules of the game." And if want to only consider what's official RAW, then you can't rely on Range/Area notation of spells in D&D Beyond to prove your point.
This is false. The correct information has already been explained several times in my previous posts #225, #228 and #231. Continuing to repeat the same false information over and over after the issue has been fully explained multiple times doesn't make it any less false. It only serves to derail the thread.
There's not really a "debate" going on in this discussion. There's basically me knowing the correct information and then there's me trying to explain the information to others in a way that they will understand. It's helpful for the learning process for current and future readers of the thread. I'm here to help. But let's keep things moving along.
The question in the OP is fully resolved. Booming Blade does not function properly with the opportunity attack clause of the War Caster Feat because it's not a spell that is cast at a creature and it is not a spell that targets only that creature.
So what you're saying is you don't care if the notation is official or not... You will use it so long as it's consistent with your interpretation. "It's official because the designers published it" apparently only applies when those same designers agree with you. I'll just prepare my final statement then if you can't even justify your own inconsistency.
Officially, the range of a spell is determined by its description in the Player's Handbook (PHB) and other official rulebooks, not by the notation on D&D Beyond.
Err, I checked out of this particular... debate a long time ago, so maybe I'm missing something, but the notation in the PHB for Self (X) spells is exactly the same in print as it is on DDB. The only difference is the description of the AoE is represented online by a little symbol
So, for lightning bolt, I turn to page 255 in my PHB and it says Range: Self (100-foot line)
We aren't talking about that. Look at fireball in beyond and compare that to the PHB. Beyond added an area to the range block. The Self (XYZ) spells are different, and are official in the books.
We've been over this ad nauseum. The spell description contains the parameters and the text for the spell effect. The Range is always given in the parameters. The Area is always given in the text for the spell effect. Sometimes the Area is also noted in the Range parameter in parentheses. It doesn't matter how the information is formatted. The content in the spell description often refers back to the general rules for spellcasting.
Officially, the range of a spell is determined by its description in the Player's Handbook (PHB) and other official rulebooks, not by the notation on D&D Beyond.
Err, I checked out of this particular... debate a long time ago, so maybe I'm missing something, but the notation in the PHB for Self (X) spells is exactly the same in print as it is on DDB. The only difference is the description of the AoE is represented online by a little symbol
So, for lightning bolt, I turn to page 255 in my PHB and it says Range: Self (100-foot line)
We aren't talking about that. Look at fireball in beyond and compare that to the PHB. Beyond added an area to the range block. The Self (XYZ) spells are different, and are official in the books.
Why would you even use fireball as an example though?
Does booming blade have different listed Ranges between the DDB spell card and Tasha's?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Officially, the range of a spell is determined by its description in the Player's Handbook (PHB) and other official rulebooks, not by the notation on D&D Beyond.
Err, I checked out of this particular... debate a long time ago, so maybe I'm missing something, but the notation in the PHB for Self (X) spells is exactly the same in print as it is on DDB. The only difference is the description of the AoE is represented online by a little symbol
So, for lightning bolt, I turn to page 255 in my PHB and it says Range: Self (100-foot line)
We aren't talking about that. Look at fireball in beyond and compare that to the PHB. Beyond added an area to the range block. The Self (XYZ) spells are different, and are official in the books.
Why would you even use fireball as an example though?
Does booming blade have different listed Ranges between the DDB spell card and Tasha's?
Because it's an obvious one. In the book it's Range 150 feet. On D&D Beyond, it's Range/Area 150 feet (20-foot radius). That's the difference. D&D Beyond added areas to spells with AoE's in the range block for convenience.
In the book it's Range 150 feet. On D&D Beyond, it's Range/Area 150 feet (20-foot radius). That's the difference. D&D Beyond added areas to spells with AoE's in the range block for convenience.
Hopefully you'll reread what you've just said here and realize that it's exactly what I've been saying. Some spells already have AoEs. Wherever that occurs, D&D Beyond simply added the note about the AoE into the spell parameters for convenience. Yes, exactly.
Booming blade never describes an area of effect, just a self (5' radius) in which you "make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you." No area is ever described in the spell at all.
So, you say the spell never describes an area of effect, then you immediately quote BOTH of the places where the AoE for the spell is described. Then you conclude that no area is ever described. Yep, that's a new one.
Let's compare with Fireball: "Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw." Is this even an AoE spell? How do you know?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We'll know more with the release of new sorcerer material, but in the playtest, twin spell metamagic had a very specific definition that really cleared up which spells were "twinnable." That isn't to say that emanation won't play into the final product, but I don't think it needs to unless they just want it to. After all, emanation simply explains the possible range of effect. You could have an emanation that affects everything within its AoE or you could have an emanation that establishes a range from which you pick or more targets, but maybe not everyone automatically. It's a good and versatile tool. And it could work for booming blade too. I just don't think it will be used that way.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I do hope they give BB/GFB a major overhaul in 5.5. They weren't mentioned in the spells video, so I assume they haven't been added to the PHB
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
No, the spell is telling you that it's an AoE spell, even if the flavor of what happens doesn't look like it. The online parameter clearly notes an Area and the spell text itself was changed via errata to say that you must choose a creature "within 5 feet of you" instead of "within range". The spell is telling which type of spell this is. The way in which a creature is affected involves being the target of an attack, but the spell isn't targeting the creature. It's targeting self. As mentioned, perhaps this mechanic is being changed in the future, but in the 2014 rules, this is how it works.
It doesn't work against anything, it's part of the bigger picture of the spellcasting system, which is why I presented all of this together. The raw magic is everywhere, but you can only harness it by casting a spell. You are filling an Area with a spell effect. The effect that you put in there is referred to as an Area of Effect. By putting it in there, you have successfully affected the Area that you were trying to affect with your AoE spell.
This is false. Targeting is fully tied together with the concept of Range because that's what the word Range MEANS. It's literally the maximum distance between the source of the spell and the target of the spell. The section then goes on to explain what some different types of ranges are that we might encounter in the game. Let's look again:
This entire section is literally discussing where you are allowed to target your spell, because that's what the word Range means in this game. It's all right there in the rules for Range.
So, to be even more clear, that twice now that the rules are telling the players that you target the point of origin for your AoE spells. One of those occurs in the rules for Range that I've just quoted above. The other place is in the rules for Targets:
So, honestly just asking the same basic question over and over when it has been answered dozens of times is the petulant thing to do if we want to start throwing that word around as you just did.
Furthermore, I presented several other extremely core rules for spellcasting that demonstrate quite clearly that the system HAS to work the way that I'm describing, otherwise those rules don't function correctly, such as the clear path rule. Again, big picture. Evidence upon evidence. It's why I presented it all together. There is a reason for the things that I post. I quote the rules that actually exist in the game, and I explain them.
Ok, if you want to ignore the entire 5e system of spellcasting that's been designed and build by clinging to that one single line that incorrectly describes how to handle a corner case, then that's fine with me, go nuts. I've already explained what probably happened with that line. I've also acknowledged several times that there are inconsistencies in the rules and when that happens it's up to the DM to decide the best way to resolve them.
False.
No, that's wrong. The whole rule needs to be read together. The premise is that every spell has a purpose in that it is trying to affect something with magic -- that's where you target your spell. The spell description tells you which type of spell it is -- what it is trying to actually do. By doing so, the spell description tells you what the target of the spell is required to be.
For example, for a spell like Magic Missile, you are required to target creatures. You cannot target a wall or a mound of dirt or a point in space. This is a requirement. The spell description tells you that the spell's purpose is to affect a creature with magic and that you are required to target that creature.
The same is true for every AoE spell. The purpose of those spells is to fill an area with a spell effect which is referred to as an Area of Effect. To do this, you are required to target that area so that the spell can achieve its purpose.
The rule for Targets is telling you this. It's very clear how it works.
This was already explained. This section about Areas does not have to talk about targeting because the mechanism for spell targeting has already been explained in two other places. This section is written from the perspective of the AoE itself that is created by the spell, so it refers to it's point of origin as its location in the world -- it doesn't matter to the AoE itself if that location in the world was targeted by the spell in order to put it there.
Intentionally finding the rules inconsistencies that exist in a few places and claiming that that constitutes "rules support" for a general rule that doesn't exist is the Facepalm that I keep trying to get you to recognize. Those parts of the books are simply attempting to refer back to a general rule -- they are not creating a new general rule at all. Once again, when there is an inconsistency in the rules it is the DM's job to use all of the information that he has to make the best possible ruling.
This is false. The spell's description tells you which type of spell it is for targeting purposes:
The definition of a spell's description is here:
The parameters of the spell and the effect text are equally important. For Booming Blade, the Range/Area entry notes that this is an AoE spell. The effect text includes language which was explicitly changed via errata -- instead of referring to the attack target being "within range", the attack target must now be "within 5 feet of you". All of these aspects of the spell description are telling you which type of spell this is and therefore which category of spell target is required.
I have the same feeling. I mean, maybe Emanation is more helpful for spells like Spirit Guardians, Globe of Invulnerability, Antilife Shell, Holy Aura, or even Earth Tremor, so the current doubts around the Internet about some AoEs can be dispelled (hehehe...)
If I can make a wish, I would like to see more examples or more detailed rules in the new PHB about how the different Ranges work, specially the Self and Self (XYZ) ones.
Oh, and thank you for your advice.
I'm coming up with a response, but I would like to give you an opportunity here. I said before:
"And lastly, your big argument that Self (5-foot radius) means there's an AoE. You mostly base this off of the Range/Area notation in the app. The problem with this is it isn't official RAW."
You didn't respond to this so I'll let you respond to factor into my final post. Do you agree or disagree that Range/Area notation is not official RAW?
I'm not sure what you mean by official RAW in this context. When we use the acronym "RAW" around here that just stands for Rules As Written. This just refers to the rules as they are actually written down in the rule books for the game.
The Range parameter that exists at the top of the spell block is part of the information for the spell. You'll find no "rule" which tells you about the spell parameters in particular except perhaps for this general rule:
To understand the information that's given in the spell parameters, you have to refer back to the general rules. So, the Range parameter, for example, just refers back to the general Range rule from Chapter 10. If you see terms in that parameter such as "touch" or "self", you again have to refer back to the Range rule for the meaning.
As mentioned a couple of times before, the old hardcopy books simply had a parameter called "Range" and for most of the spells the Area information was left out of it.
For example, in the hardcopy book that I'm looking at, the Range entry for the Fireball spell simply says: "Range: 150 feet". But the Area information will always also appear in the text for the effect. In the case of Fireball, the text says "Each creature in a 20-foot radius sphere centered on that point must . . .". This text here for Fireball doesn't actually beat you over the head with the fact that this area is actually filled with any sort of magical effect. All it says is that creatures in that area make a saving throw. So, is this an Area of Effect spell or not? It could technically be interpreted either way, right? Well, no, not really. It turns out that huge numbers of AoE spells in the game are all written with this sort of subtle style. The spell effect mostly focuses on explaining what happens to creatures that are within one of these areas instead of going through a lot of trouble to write some clear and obvious flavor text of what the actual effect is that is filling up the space. Whenever you see any sort of hard-coded area referenced within the text for the effect, there is nearly a 100% chance that the spell is an AoE spell.
Likewise, in the case of Booming Blade, the Area is referenced within the text for the effect of the spell. It mentions something happening "against one creature within 5 feet of you". Just like in the case of the Fireball spell, this text here for Booming Blade doesn't actually beat you over the head with the fact that this area is actually filled with any sort of magical effect. All it says is that the creature must be located within this area. So, is this an Area of Effect spell? Yes. Just like Fireball, this is an Area of Effect spell.
Going back to the parameters now, I'm not totally sure what the very latest printing of the PHB looks like for our Fireball spell example. But, if you pull up the Basic Rules in D&D Beyond and click to Chapter 11: Spells and then scroll down to the Fireball spell, the parameter is still listed as "Range: 150 feet". Because of this, I assume that it has never changed in the hard copy versions of the rules.
But now we also have digital copies of the rules and D&D Beyond databases. If you start at the main page and instead of clicking into the Basic Rules you click on Game Rules -> Spells -> View All . . . now you are on a page that has a searchable and filterable list of all of the spells in the game. If you search for Fireball, you'll find an entry for the Fireball spell. This entry has a summary which contains a data column called "Range/Area". The data given there is "150 ft (20 ft sphere)". If you click to open the full spell description for that spell, you again get the parameter "Range/Area: 150 ft (20 ft sphere)".
Hopefully some of that information was related to the question you are asking -- something about if the parameters are RAW. The above is all of the written information that we have available to us. The spell descriptions sometimes have parameters which indicate an AoE spell and they always have text within the effect which indicates an AoE spell if it is actually an AoE spell. The books should have been more careful and more systematized with how they presented this information, but they weren't.
Right, this is whatI'm referring to. The D&D Beyond website has spell descriptions which include Range/Area notation. It's also on the app. It is my understanding that this notation was added to make it easier for players to understand and find information about spells. Officially, the range of a spell is determined by its description in the Player's Handbook (PHB) and other official rulebooks, not by the notation on D&D Beyond.
So, would you agree that this notation is not officially part of D&D rules? Would you say officially the block is just called Range in accordance with the PHB?
I'm not sure if I would agree with that. D&D Beyond is created and run by the same company that publishes the hard copy rules for the game. It's where you get the official digital copies for the same game which has the same content. They've created a link on the site to "Game Rules" which allows you to quickly search for an individual spell listing or class or monster or piece of equipment or magic item among other things which is meant to reference directly back to the actual rules of the game. It provides the same content as you'd get if you flipped through a hard copy of the rules.
For example, if I use that tool to search for the Wizard class, I can see all of the same content for the Wizard class that the Basic Rules provide. Side-by-side I can scroll through the entry in the Basic Rules, the entry in the physical PHB, and the entry in this "Game Rules" search result and every word is identical. However, when I get down to the section on "Quick Build" for the Wizard class, it looks different. In the Basic Rules it is shown as a subheading of Creating a Wizard with its text presented in the same way as in Creating a Wizard. The PHB hard copy looks like that as well. But, in this online "Game Rules" search, this block of text is presented in the Sidebar format, visually separated from the content of Creating a Wizard.
Does this matter for anything? The formatting is different, but the information is identical. Is one of these the "RAW" version? In my opinion, these are all the RAW for the game, even when they look a little different. There can exist slightly more significant inconsistencies than this between these versions of how the rules are presented, but this was the quickest example that I could find. I don't think the format of how the rules are presented makes one the official version and one somehow homebrew. They are both the officially published rules for the game, delivered by the company that owns the game. If there was ever any actual difference in the content between these two versions, then that would have to be reconciled somehow by the DM.
For those who are still in the camp that AoE spells target creatures, can we just quickly run through the exercise of taking a look at the spells that are similar to Fireball which have the simple structure of filling an area with a spell effect that is capable of causing damage to creatures:
Burning Hands: "Each creature in a cone . . . the creature takes damage".
Cloud of Daggers: "A creature takes damage".
Cloudkill: "When a creature enters the area . . . that creature must . . . the creature takes damage . . . creatures are affected".
Cone of Cold: "Each creature in a cone . . . a creature takes damage . . . a creature killed by this spell becomes".
Conjure Barrage: "Each creature in a cone . . . a creature takes damage".
Conjure Volley: "Each creature in a cylinder . . . a creature takes damage".
Delayed Blast Fireball: "Each creature in a sphere . . . a creature takes damage".
Destructive Wave: "Each creature you choose within 30 feet of you must . . . a creature that succeeds . . .".
Fire Storm: "Each creature in the area . . . it takes damage".
Flame Strike: "Each creature in a cylinder . . . the creature takes damage".
Flaming Sphere: "A creature within 5 feet of the sphere . . . the creature takes damage . . . if you ram the sphere into a creature, that creature must . . .".
Freezing Sphere: "Each creature within the area . . . a creature takes damage . . . creatures that were swimming . . . a trapped creature can".
Ice Storm: "Each creature in the cylinder . . . a creature takes damage".
Incendiary Cloud: "Each creature in it must . . . a creature takes damage . . . a creature must also".
Insect Plague: "Each creature in it must . . . a creature takes damage . . . a creature must also".
Lightning Bolt: "Each creature in the line must . . . a creature takes damage".
Meteor Swarm: "Each creature in a sphere . . . a creature takes damage".
Moonbeam: "When a creature enters . . . it takes damage".
Shatter: "Each creature in a sphere . . . a creature takes damage . . . a creature made of".
Spike Growth: "When a creature move into . . . it takes damage . . . any creature that can't see the area".
Sunbeam: "Each creature in the line must . . . a creature takes damage".
Sunburst: "Each creature in that light must . . . a creature takes damage . . . a creature blinded by this spell makes".
Thunderwave: "Each creature in a cube must . . . a creature takes damage".
Weird: "Each creature in a sphere must . . . a creature becomes frightened . . . it takes damage".
* Fireball: "Each creature in a sphere must . . . A target takes damage".
* Circle of Death: "Each creature in that area must . . . A target takes damage".
----------
So, the question is . . . can you explain this?
Judging only from the above text . . . what does it look like the general rule probably is?
----------
Here is another question: How would you reconcile that the following general rules for spellcasting all function as written all at the same time?
Does your interpretation for how targeting works in AoE spells honestly allow all of the above core general spellcasting rules to function correctly all at the same time in every situation?
The "Range/Area" notation on D&D Beyond can be considered official in the sense that it is provided by Wizards of the Coast, the same company that publishes the D&D rulebooks. However, similar to Sage Advice, it serves more as an interpretation and presentation of the rules rather than a modification of the rules themselves.
So if you want to consider the "Range/Area" notation on D&D Beyond official, then likewise you ought to consider Sage Advice official since it's also from the game's designers.
Sage Advice
That doesn't really make sense to me. Sage Advice is different. It's not the actual rules of the game. It presents official rulings, interpretations or indications of design intent for the rules, but they are not the Rules As Written.
The D&D Beyond "Game Rules" database presents the actual rules for the game. At most there are some minor formatting differences but the content is identical.
But let's suppose for a moment that the online entries are not RAW content. What point are you making here? The content is identical. Just because the data might be formatted with a heading that is labeled as Range/Area instead of Range doesn't change the content for the spell. That parameter lists the range of the spell and sometimes will include a note about the Area of Effect for the spell in parentheses. Whenever that happens, it will always also be described in the text for the spell's effect.
So my point is that this argument you're making is relying on unofficial material. It's fine if you want to allow unofficial material from the game designers, that's fine... But then to be consistent you'd have to allow Sage Advice, and then the debate is over.
And as I said before, the "Range/Area" notation on D&D Beyond is considered a quality-of-life improvement rather than an official rules change. This notation was added to make it easier for players to understand and find information about spells. The only thing that would make it official is that it's from the designers, but so is Sage Advice. If it's not in an official rule book or errata, it's not the "actual rules of the game." And if want to only consider what's official RAW, then you can't rely on Range/Area notation of spells in D&D Beyond to prove your point.
Err, I checked out of this particular... debate a long time ago, so maybe I'm missing something, but the notation in the PHB for Self (X) spells is exactly the same in print as it is on DDB. The only difference is the description of the AoE is represented online by a little symbol
So, for lightning bolt, I turn to page 255 in my PHB and it says Range: Self (100-foot line)
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
This is false. The correct information has already been explained several times in my previous posts #225, #228 and #231. Continuing to repeat the same false information over and over after the issue has been fully explained multiple times doesn't make it any less false. It only serves to derail the thread.
There's not really a "debate" going on in this discussion. There's basically me knowing the correct information and then there's me trying to explain the information to others in a way that they will understand. It's helpful for the learning process for current and future readers of the thread. I'm here to help. But let's keep things moving along.
The question in the OP is fully resolved. Booming Blade does not function properly with the opportunity attack clause of the War Caster Feat because it's not a spell that is cast at a creature and it is not a spell that targets only that creature.
So what you're saying is you don't care if the notation is official or not... You will use it so long as it's consistent with your interpretation. "It's official because the designers published it" apparently only applies when those same designers agree with you. I'll just prepare my final statement then if you can't even justify your own inconsistency.
We aren't talking about that. Look at fireball in beyond and compare that to the PHB. Beyond added an area to the range block. The Self (XYZ) spells are different, and are official in the books.
We've been over this ad nauseum. The spell description contains the parameters and the text for the spell effect. The Range is always given in the parameters. The Area is always given in the text for the spell effect. Sometimes the Area is also noted in the Range parameter in parentheses. It doesn't matter how the information is formatted. The content in the spell description often refers back to the general rules for spellcasting.
Why would you even use fireball as an example though?
Does booming blade have different listed Ranges between the DDB spell card and Tasha's?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Because it's an obvious one. In the book it's Range 150 feet. On D&D Beyond, it's Range/Area 150 feet (20-foot radius). That's the difference. D&D Beyond added areas to spells with AoE's in the range block for convenience.
Hopefully you'll reread what you've just said here and realize that it's exactly what I've been saying. Some spells already have AoEs. Wherever that occurs, D&D Beyond simply added the note about the AoE into the spell parameters for convenience. Yes, exactly.
So, you say the spell never describes an area of effect, then you immediately quote BOTH of the places where the AoE for the spell is described. Then you conclude that no area is ever described. Yep, that's a new one.
Let's compare with Fireball: "Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw." Is this even an AoE spell? How do you know?