Pretty neat that not only is this feature activated three levels earlier than its original incarnation, but also applies to Cantrips with an Attack Roll as well as a Saving Throw. (And also that it doesn't specify that the cantrip in question has to be a wizard one for my fellow wizlok stans)
My question is whether or not the feature has any particular interraction with like cantrips like Green Flame Blade, Booming blade and 2024 True Strike?
Like, are the damage types, between the weapon, the elemental, and the modifier, all totalled and then halved? Is only the magical portion of the attack applied and halved? All three are on the wizard list, so its not as if its some edge case for multiclassers.
Potent Cantrip should definitely apply to the 2024 True Strike spell since that spell makes an attack roll which results in damage. If that attack roll misses, you roll for damage anyway and the monster takes half of that damage.
Green Flame Blade also makes an attack roll. If that attack roll misses, you roll for damage anyway and the monster takes half of that damage. But after that, you do not get the fire jumping effect at all since Potent Cantrip states that the target "suffers no additional effect from the cantrip". Yes, that fire effect normally eventually goes on to affect a separate target instead of the same target, but it's still an "additional effect" that's associated with the attack (the cantrip) so it doesn't occur. Another way of looking at it is that the fire effect only occurs "on a hit", and the Potent Cantrip feature does not turn a miss into a hit -- it's still a miss. But you get to apply some of the damage even though it's a miss.
Pretty much the same story for Booming Blade. That spell involves an attack roll. If that attack roll misses, you roll for damage anyway and the monster takes half of that damage. But after that, you do not get the effect of the target becoming sheathed in booming energy. The Potent Cantrip feature states that the target "suffers no additional effect from the cantrip". Also, that effect only occurs "on a hit", but this attack was still a miss, so that "additional effect" does not apply.
My question is whether or not the feature has any particular interraction with like cantrips like Green Flame Blade, Booming blade and 2024 True Strike?
Those spells do not have attack rolls, they cause you to make a weapon attack.
There's been some debate about this, but after reading the rules carefully, the key to knowing if Agonizing Blast applies to one of your Warlock cantrips is checking whether the cantrip involves a spell's damage rolls, as stated in the Eldritch Invocation:
Agonizing Blast Choose one of your known Warlock cantrips that deals damage. You can add your Charisma modifier to that spell’s damage rolls.
Technically, starting at 5th level, you could apply Agonizing Blast to the damage rolls involved in Green-Flame Blade:
For Green-Flame Blade: "At 5th level, the melee attack deals an extra 1d8 fire damage to the target on a hit, and the fire damage to the second creature increases to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier [...]"
And for Booming Blade, the Eldritch Invocation should affect the damage rolls for the thunder damage:
"[...] If the target willingly moves 5 feet or more before then, the target takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends."
"At 5th level, the melee attack deals an extra 1d8 thunder damage to the target on a hit, and the damage the target takes for moving increases to 2d8 [...]"
My question is whether or not the feature has any particular interraction with like cantrips like Green Flame Blade, Booming blade and 2024 True Strike?
Those spells do not have attack rolls, they cause you to make a weapon attack.
My Post #2 above was wrong. But this isn't the reason.
Any time an attack is made, by rule there is an attack roll:
Making an Attack
. . . an attack has the following structure:
. . .
3. Resolve the Attack. Make the attack roll . . .
However, there was something about the Potent Cantrip feature that I missed:
Level 3: Potent Cantrip
. . . When you cast a cantrip at a creature . . .
All 3 of the spells from the original post (Green Flame Blade, Booming blade and 2024 True Strike) actually have a Range of "self". Therefore, the target of these spells is actually the spellcaster, not the creature. In other words, the spell is being cast AT the spellcaster, not AT the creature. A spell effect is being created at the spellcaster's location which then subsequently affects a nearby creature with the attack roll mechanic. Because of this, the Potent Cantrip feature does not apply to these spells.
This is actually very similar to the reason why the 2014 version of the Warcaster Feat did not allow certain spells, such as Booming Blade, to be cast in lieu of making an opportunity attack -- because the spell must be cast AT the creature. There was a whole long thread about that at the time where most people were getting it wrong, but it's exactly the same concept here.
This is actually very similar to the reason why the 2014 version of the Warcaster Feat did not allow certain spells, such as Booming Blade, to be cast in lieu of making an opportunity attack -- because the spell must be cast AT the creature. There was a whole long thread about that at the time where most people were getting it wrong, but it's exactly the same concept here.
Jeremy himself ruled that works more than once, both before and after the big Xanathar's Guide to Everything errata to the SCAG and EEPC spells.
I agree that in the strictest sense you're not casting True Strike at another creature, but I'm also 99% confident that sentence is just there because a lot of people have a habit of treating the first sentences like flavor text and the writers want to be extra clear that this doesn't apply to objects. Personally I'd let this slide as a DM.
@InquisitiveCoder I can't say I recommend (EDIT: because it's a nightmare) the thread mentioned by @up2ng, but there was a HUGE discussion there: Dissonant Whispers Combo
This is actually very similar to the reason why the 2014 version of the Warcaster Feat did not allow certain spells, such as Booming Blade, to be cast in lieu of making an opportunity attack -- because the spell must be cast AT the creature. There was a whole long thread about that at the time where most people were getting it wrong, but it's exactly the same concept here.
Jeremy himself ruled that works more than once, both before and after the big Xanathar's Guide to Everything errata to the SCAG and EEPC spells.
I agree that in the strictest sense you're not casting True Strike at another creature, but I'm also 99% confident that sentence is just there because a lot of people have a habit of treating the first sentences like flavor text and the writers want to be extra clear that this doesn't apply to objects. Personally I'd let this slide as a DM.
To make it even more explicit, none of those spells target "self." They have a range of self, as specified under "range/area." The targeting is covered in the spells' descriptions, generally the target of the weapon attack.
So by Agonizing blast logic, the Potent Cantrip "miss" effect should be that its half of the "non weapon" damage?
I know not everyone will agree with my opinion, but I think Potent Cantrip doesn't work with Booming Blade, Green-Flame Blade or True Strike because those cantrips aren't "damaging cantrips". The damage comes first from the weapon attack.
Emphasis mine:
Level 3: Potent Cantrip Your damaging cantrips affect even creatures that avoid the brunt of the effect. When you cast a cantrip at a creature and you miss with the attack roll or the target succeeds on a saving throw against the cantrip, the target takes half the cantrip’s damage (if any) but suffers no additional effect from the cantrip.
@up2ng mentioned the reason is Range: Self, but I don't agree. You are the spell's point of origin, but you aren't necessarily its target. The target is the creature.
I can see the perspective, but it is a bit disappointing if thats how the interraction was intended. I'm definitely looking forward to one of the rule designers commenting on it eventually.
I know not everyone will agree with my opinion, but I think Potent Cantrip doesn't work with Booming Blade, Green-Flame Blade or True Strike because those cantrips aren't "damaging cantrips". The damage comes first from the weapon attack.
I don't think anyone would dispute that part of the damage is coming from a weapon attack, but all three spells clearly add damage as well. I don't see any other way to interpret "damaging cantrip" besides "cantrip that deals damage." RAW, the ambiguity really comes down to what counts as "cast a cantrip at a creature." If you move past that point, the feature is written broadly enough to work.
RAI, we can rule out the weapon damage part of Booming Blade and GFB. That's a topic that's been beaten to death over the years; the weapon attack isn't magical, so it doesn't make much sense for Potent Cantrips to affect that. But both spells do add damage to the attack at higher levels, and I'd argue they should still deal half of the extra damage. True Strike might seem the same at first glance but even before it deals extra damage, you can change the damage type to Radiant, and that's definitely some magic right there. I'd argue RAI it should also deal half of all of the Radiant damage.
RAF, I really don't see the harm in saying yes to this, weapon damage and all.
I know not everyone will agree with my opinion, but I think Potent Cantrip doesn't work with Booming Blade, Green-Flame Blade or True Strike because those cantrips aren't "damaging cantrips". The damage comes first from the weapon attack.
I don't think anyone would dispute that part of the damage is coming from a weapon attack, but all three spells clearly add damage as well. I don't see any other way to interpret "damaging cantrip" besides "cantrip that deals damage." RAW, the ambiguity really comes down to what counts as "cast a cantrip at a creature." If you move past that point, the feature is written broadly enough to work.
RAI, we can rule out the weapon damage part of Booming Blade and GFB. That's a topic that's been beaten to death over the years; the weapon attack isn't magical, so it doesn't make much sense for Potent Cantrips to affect that. But both spells do add damage to the attack at higher levels, and I'd argue they should still deal half of the extra damage. True Strike might seem the same at first glance but even before it deals extra damage, you can change the damage type to Radiant, and that's definitely some magic right there. I'd argue RAI it should also deal half of all of the Radiant damage.
RAF, I really don't see the harm in saying yes to this, weapon damage and all.
Sorry, let me update my previous answer with this reply. I realized I didn't include all the details I had in mind. Please let me know if you agree now or not:
I meant that BB and GFB don't interact with Potent Cantrip before 5th level, based on my similar thoughts in the thread.
Potent Cantrip states "When you cast a cantrip at a creature and you miss with the attack roll or the target succeeds on a saving throw against the cantrip, the target takes half the cantrip’s damage (if any) but suffers no additional effect from the cantrip".
To me, this means the second creature in GFB won't be affected, and the damage a target takes for moving in BB won't occur.
Regarding True Strike, if you choose radiant damage, I agree that Potent Cantrip will affect it.
The target: self does mean that potent cantrip doesn't apply to any of these, as the target of your spell (self) is neither being missed by an attack roll nor making a save. This is also an issue for acid splash (targets an area), sword burst (self), thunderclap (self), and word of radiance (self).
Note that bonuses to spell attack rolls also don't apply to the weapon attack cantrips (though magic weapon bonuses, and other bonuses to weapon attacks, do apply).
This is actually very similar to the reason why the 2014 version of the Warcaster Feat did not allow certain spells, such as Booming Blade, to be cast in lieu of making an opportunity attack -- because the spell must be cast AT the creature. There was a whole long thread about that at the time where most people were getting it wrong, but it's exactly the same concept here.
Jeremy himself ruled that works more than once, both before and after the big Xanathar's Guide to Everything errata to the SCAG and EEPC spells.
I agree that in the strictest sense you're not casting True Strike at another creature, but I'm also 99% confident that sentence is just there because a lot of people have a habit of treating the first sentences like flavor text and the writers want to be extra clear that this doesn't apply to objects. Personally I'd let this slide as a DM.
Yeah, Jeremy was wrong in this case. It happens. When he makes posts from the perspective of RAI it is always welcome, and he can never be wrong from that perspective. But when he makes posts that appear to be interpreting the RAW, he is wrong probably about 30% of the time. The fact that he is "often" wrong is well documented.
To make it even more explicit, none of those spells target "self." They have a range of self, as specified under "range/area." The targeting is covered in the spells' descriptions, generally the target of the weapon attack.
(In the 2014 rules, it is easy to confuse "point of origin" with "target," though they are different things. That has been cleared up in 2024.)
You probably should not be trying to turn another thread into a general discussion about targeting, but this is totally wrong.
One of the core fundamental rules of spellcasting is:
2014:
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range.
2024:
A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate
. . .
Self.The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them, as specified in the spell.
The main connotation of the term "target" when it comes to spellcasting is what you are casting your spell AT, and that's the connotation that we are focused on here with this discussion since the Feature in question requires the spell to be cast AT a creature.
In 2024 there is also a separate connotation for the usage of the term "target" that appears in the Rules Glossary which is meant as a catch-all term so that the rules do not have to constantly use phrases such as "affected creature or object". That rule is:
A target is the creature or object targeted by an attack roll, forced to make a saving throwby an effect, or selected to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon.
In this case, the effect is said to be targeting a creature or object. That's a totally separate concept which is NOT what we are talking about here. In that case, you fill up an AoE with an effect . . . and if a creature is located in that area and is subsequently affected by that effect, then that creature is said to be a "target" of that effect. In some other cases, a spell might directly target a creature and the effect that is created there causes that creature to make a saving throw. In that case the spell targeted the creature and also the effect targeted the creature -- two different connotations that sometimes align.
None of that has anything at all to do whatsoever with the concept of where the spell was cast AT. You aim your spell AT something when you target your spell. That "something" (person, place or thing) is the target of the spell. That's the connotation that we are discussing here:
A spell’s description says whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or something else.
. . .
A Clear Path to the Target. To target something with a spell, a caster must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind Total Cover.
. . .
Areas of Effect. Some spells, such as Thunderwave, cover an area called an area of effect, which is defined in the rules glossary. The area determines what the spell targets.
As already quoted above, whenever a spell has a range of "self", the spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them. The spell targets the spellcaster in these cases. There is actually no other possibility since any other potential target would be outside of the range and the effect cannot originate outside of the range.
In 2024, the range of a spell specifies "how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate". If the range is "self", the effect can ONLY originate AT the spellcaster. Such spells CANNOT be cast AT anything else. Although the term "target" does not appear in that 2024 section that defines the Range of a spell, that place where the spell's effect originates IS the target of the spell, as shown above.
But whether or not you agree with that doesn't matter here. The Feature in question requires the spell be cast AT a creature. Whether we refer to this "aiming" of the spell as the spell's "target" or we just refer to it more generically as the location that "the spell's effect originates" . . . whatever we refer to that as is the concept that Potent Cantrip cares about -- what the spell is being cast AT. Casting a spell AT another creature simply is not possible for any spell that has a Range of "self".
The target: self does mean that potent cantrip doesn't apply to any of these, as the target of your spell (self) is neither being missed by an attack roll nor making a save. This is also an issue for acid splash (targets an area), sword burst (self), thunderclap (self), and word of radiance (self).
Note that bonuses to spell attack rolls also don't apply to the weapon attack cantrips (though magic weapon bonuses, and other bonuses to weapon attacks, do apply).
The 2024 rules include a definition of target
"Target
A target is the creature or object targeted by an attack roll, forced to make a saving throw by an effect, or selected to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon."
In the case of Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade, these are cantrips with a range of self but the TARGET is the creature targeted by the attack roll ... in this case the creature against whom the melee weapon attack is made. In all of these spells with a range (self), the caster is explicitly not necessarily the target of the spell.
The target: self does mean that potent cantrip doesn't apply to any of these, as the target of your spell (self) is neither being missed by an attack roll nor making a save. This is also an issue for acid splash (targets an area), sword burst (self), thunderclap (self), and word of radiance (self).
Note that bonuses to spell attack rolls also don't apply to the weapon attack cantrips (though magic weapon bonuses, and other bonuses to weapon attacks, do apply).
The 2024 rules include a definition of target
"Target
A target is the creature or object targeted by an attack roll, forced to make a saving throw by an effect, or selected to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon."
In the case of Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade, these are cantrips with a range of self but the TARGET is the creature targeted by the attack roll ... in this case the creature against whom the melee weapon attack is made. In all of these spells with a range (self), the caster is explicitly not necessarily the target of the spell.
Whether or not you agree that the term "target" refers to where you are aiming your spell in order to specify where "the effect originates" or not (among other uses for the term that have been introduced in 2024), please note that the Potent Cantrip feature, which is what this thread was originally about, doesn't necessarily care. It explicitly requires that the target creature is one in which the spell was cast AT that creature.
For spells such as Magic Missile or Sacred Flame, the two connotations of "target" align. The creature is the target of the spell (the spell was aimed AT the creature) and it's also the target of the resulting effect (causing an attack roll or a saving throw).
For any spell with a range of "self", this simply is not possible. Such spells cannot be cast AT the creature in question.
On a somewhat contrary note, I would not assume that the written text indicates actual intent; we have far too many examples of 5e rules that are complete nonsense as written for that to be a justified assumption.
To make it even more explicit, none of those spells target "self." They have a range of self, as specified under "range/area." The targeting is covered in the spells' descriptions, generally the target of the weapon attack.
(In the 2014 rules, it is easy to confuse "point of origin" with "target," though they are different things. That has been cleared up in 2024.)
You probably should not be trying to turn another thread into a general discussion about targeting, but this is totally wrong.
I'll do as I please, thank you. I suppose I appreciate the...warning?
And I stand by what I wrote; it is backed by both versions of the PHB (RAW) and the stated intent of the lead designer (RAI), not to mention his clearly stated explanation in the video above.
A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate
. . .
Self.The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them, as specified in the spell.
The main connotation of the term "target" when it comes to spellcasting is what you are casting your spell AT, and that's the connotation that we are focused on here with this discussion since the Feature in question requires the spell to be cast AT a creature.
They even added the terms "emanation" and "emanate" to the 2024 versions to make this more clear. It's in that quote: a range of "self" can mean the spell emanates from the self. It goes outwards, towards the targets. "At" the targets, if you prefer. (They said the same thing, just without the convenient term "emanate", in 2014.)
Yeah, Jeremy was wrong in this case. It happens. When he makes posts from the perspective of RAI it is always welcome, and he can never be wrong from that perspective. But when he makes posts that appear to be interpreting the RAW, he is wrong probably about 30% of the time. The fact that he is "often" wrong is well documented.
I don't see how anyone can claim right or wrong in a rule that doesn't use strictly codified game terms. "Cast a spell at" is not a glossary term.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Forum Infestation (TM)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Pretty neat that not only is this feature activated three levels earlier than its original incarnation, but also applies to Cantrips with an Attack Roll as well as a Saving Throw. (And also that it doesn't specify that the cantrip in question has to be a wizard one for my fellow wizlok stans)
My question is whether or not the feature has any particular interraction with like cantrips like Green Flame Blade, Booming blade and 2024 True Strike?
Like, are the damage types, between the weapon, the elemental, and the modifier, all totalled and then halved? Is only the magical portion of the attack applied and halved? All three are on the wizard list, so its not as if its some edge case for multiclassers.
Potent Cantrip should definitely apply to the 2024 True Strike spell since that spell makes an attack roll which results in damage. If that attack roll misses, you roll for damage anyway and the monster takes half of that damage.
Green Flame Blade also makes an attack roll. If that attack roll misses, you roll for damage anyway and the monster takes half of that damage. But after that, you do not get the fire jumping effect at all since Potent Cantrip states that the target "suffers no additional effect from the cantrip". Yes, that fire effect normally eventually goes on to affect a separate target instead of the same target, but it's still an "additional effect" that's associated with the attack (the cantrip) so it doesn't occur. Another way of looking at it is that the fire effect only occurs "on a hit", and the Potent Cantrip feature does not turn a miss into a hit -- it's still a miss. But you get to apply some of the damage even though it's a miss.
Pretty much the same story for Booming Blade. That spell involves an attack roll. If that attack roll misses, you roll for damage anyway and the monster takes half of that damage. But after that, you do not get the effect of the target becoming sheathed in booming energy. The Potent Cantrip feature states that the target "suffers no additional effect from the cantrip". Also, that effect only occurs "on a hit", but this attack was still a miss, so that "additional effect" does not apply.
Those spells do not have attack rolls, they cause you to make a weapon attack.
There's been some debate about this, but after reading the rules carefully, the key to knowing if Agonizing Blast applies to one of your Warlock cantrips is checking whether the cantrip involves a spell's damage rolls, as stated in the Eldritch Invocation:
The weapon attacks in Booming Blade, Green-Flame Blade, True Strike are not spell's damage rolls.
Technically, starting at 5th level, you could apply Agonizing Blast to the damage rolls involved in Green-Flame Blade:
And for Booming Blade, the Eldritch Invocation should affect the damage rolls for the thunder damage:
Related posts:
So by Agonizing blast logic, the Potent Cantrip "miss" effect should be that its half of the "non weapon" damage?
My Post #2 above was wrong. But this isn't the reason.
Any time an attack is made, by rule there is an attack roll:
However, there was something about the Potent Cantrip feature that I missed:
All 3 of the spells from the original post (Green Flame Blade, Booming blade and 2024 True Strike) actually have a Range of "self". Therefore, the target of these spells is actually the spellcaster, not the creature. In other words, the spell is being cast AT the spellcaster, not AT the creature. A spell effect is being created at the spellcaster's location which then subsequently affects a nearby creature with the attack roll mechanic. Because of this, the Potent Cantrip feature does not apply to these spells.
This is actually very similar to the reason why the 2014 version of the Warcaster Feat did not allow certain spells, such as Booming Blade, to be cast in lieu of making an opportunity attack -- because the spell must be cast AT the creature. There was a whole long thread about that at the time where most people were getting it wrong, but it's exactly the same concept here.
Jeremy himself ruled that works more than once, both before and after the big Xanathar's Guide to Everything errata to the SCAG and EEPC spells.
"The Booming Blade spell continues to work with the War Caster feat. The spell targets one creature. The Green-Flame Blade spell continues to work with War Caster if you forgo targeting a second creature with the green fire."
I agree that in the strictest sense you're not casting True Strike at another creature, but I'm also 99% confident that sentence is just there because a lot of people have a habit of treating the first sentences like flavor text and the writers want to be extra clear that this doesn't apply to objects. Personally I'd let this slide as a DM.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
@InquisitiveCoder I can't say I recommend (EDIT: because it's a nightmare) the thread mentioned by @up2ng, but there was a HUGE discussion there: Dissonant Whispers Combo
For the record, I agree with the Dev on this.
To make it even more explicit, none of those spells target "self." They have a range of self, as specified under "range/area." The targeting is covered in the spells' descriptions, generally the target of the weapon attack.
Jeremy covered this explicitly in this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=xUOaQ_XY7wE; go to about minute 14 in that.
(In the 2014 rules, it is easy to confuse "point of origin" with "target," though they are different things. That has been cleared up in 2024.)
I know not everyone will agree with my opinion, but I think Potent Cantrip doesn't work with Booming Blade, Green-Flame Blade or True Strike because those cantrips aren't "damaging cantrips". The damage comes first from the weapon attack.
Emphasis mine:
@up2ng mentioned the reason is Range: Self, but I don't agree. You are the spell's point of origin, but you aren't necessarily its target. The target is the creature.
EDIT: see also my next post.
I can see the perspective, but it is a bit disappointing if thats how the interraction was intended. I'm definitely looking forward to one of the rule designers commenting on it eventually.
I suppose in the meantime it has its niche.
I don't think anyone would dispute that part of the damage is coming from a weapon attack, but all three spells clearly add damage as well. I don't see any other way to interpret "damaging cantrip" besides "cantrip that deals damage." RAW, the ambiguity really comes down to what counts as "cast a cantrip at a creature." If you move past that point, the feature is written broadly enough to work.
RAI, we can rule out the weapon damage part of Booming Blade and GFB. That's a topic that's been beaten to death over the years; the weapon attack isn't magical, so it doesn't make much sense for Potent Cantrips to affect that. But both spells do add damage to the attack at higher levels, and I'd argue they should still deal half of the extra damage. True Strike might seem the same at first glance but even before it deals extra damage, you can change the damage type to Radiant, and that's definitely some magic right there. I'd argue RAI it should also deal half of all of the Radiant damage.
RAF, I really don't see the harm in saying yes to this, weapon damage and all.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Sorry, let me update my previous answer with this reply. I realized I didn't include all the details I had in mind. Please let me know if you agree now or not:
The target: self does mean that potent cantrip doesn't apply to any of these, as the target of your spell (self) is neither being missed by an attack roll nor making a save. This is also an issue for acid splash (targets an area), sword burst (self), thunderclap (self), and word of radiance (self).
Note that bonuses to spell attack rolls also don't apply to the weapon attack cantrips (though magic weapon bonuses, and other bonuses to weapon attacks, do apply).
Yeah, Jeremy was wrong in this case. It happens. When he makes posts from the perspective of RAI it is always welcome, and he can never be wrong from that perspective. But when he makes posts that appear to be interpreting the RAW, he is wrong probably about 30% of the time. The fact that he is "often" wrong is well documented.
You probably should not be trying to turn another thread into a general discussion about targeting, but this is totally wrong.
One of the core fundamental rules of spellcasting is:
2014:
2024:
The main connotation of the term "target" when it comes to spellcasting is what you are casting your spell AT, and that's the connotation that we are focused on here with this discussion since the Feature in question requires the spell to be cast AT a creature.
In 2024 there is also a separate connotation for the usage of the term "target" that appears in the Rules Glossary which is meant as a catch-all term so that the rules do not have to constantly use phrases such as "affected creature or object". That rule is:
In this case, the effect is said to be targeting a creature or object. That's a totally separate concept which is NOT what we are talking about here. In that case, you fill up an AoE with an effect . . . and if a creature is located in that area and is subsequently affected by that effect, then that creature is said to be a "target" of that effect. In some other cases, a spell might directly target a creature and the effect that is created there causes that creature to make a saving throw. In that case the spell targeted the creature and also the effect targeted the creature -- two different connotations that sometimes align.
None of that has anything at all to do whatsoever with the concept of where the spell was cast AT. You aim your spell AT something when you target your spell. That "something" (person, place or thing) is the target of the spell. That's the connotation that we are discussing here:
As already quoted above, whenever a spell has a range of "self", the spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them. The spell targets the spellcaster in these cases. There is actually no other possibility since any other potential target would be outside of the range and the effect cannot originate outside of the range.
In 2024, the range of a spell specifies "how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate". If the range is "self", the effect can ONLY originate AT the spellcaster. Such spells CANNOT be cast AT anything else. Although the term "target" does not appear in that 2024 section that defines the Range of a spell, that place where the spell's effect originates IS the target of the spell, as shown above.
But whether or not you agree with that doesn't matter here. The Feature in question requires the spell be cast AT a creature. Whether we refer to this "aiming" of the spell as the spell's "target" or we just refer to it more generically as the location that "the spell's effect originates" . . . whatever we refer to that as is the concept that Potent Cantrip cares about -- what the spell is being cast AT. Casting a spell AT another creature simply is not possible for any spell that has a Range of "self".
The 2024 rules include a definition of target
"Target
A target is the creature or object targeted by an attack roll, forced to make a saving throw by an effect, or selected to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon."
In the case of Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade, these are cantrips with a range of self but the TARGET is the creature targeted by the attack roll ... in this case the creature against whom the melee weapon attack is made. In all of these spells with a range (self), the caster is explicitly not necessarily the target of the spell.
Whether or not you agree that the term "target" refers to where you are aiming your spell in order to specify where "the effect originates" or not (among other uses for the term that have been introduced in 2024), please note that the Potent Cantrip feature, which is what this thread was originally about, doesn't necessarily care. It explicitly requires that the target creature is one in which the spell was cast AT that creature.
For spells such as Magic Missile or Sacred Flame, the two connotations of "target" align. The creature is the target of the spell (the spell was aimed AT the creature) and it's also the target of the resulting effect (causing an attack roll or a saving throw).
For any spell with a range of "self", this simply is not possible. Such spells cannot be cast AT the creature in question.
On a somewhat contrary note, I would not assume that the written text indicates actual intent; we have far too many examples of 5e rules that are complete nonsense as written for that to be a justified assumption.
I'll do as I please, thank you. I suppose I appreciate the...warning?
And I stand by what I wrote; it is backed by both versions of the PHB (RAW) and the stated intent of the lead designer (RAI), not to mention his clearly stated explanation in the video above.
They even added the terms "emanation" and "emanate" to the 2024 versions to make this more clear. It's in that quote: a range of "self" can mean the spell emanates from the self. It goes outwards, towards the targets. "At" the targets, if you prefer. (They said the same thing, just without the convenient term "emanate", in 2014.)
I don't see how anyone can claim right or wrong in a rule that doesn't use strictly codified game terms. "Cast a spell at" is not a glossary term.
The Forum Infestation (TM)