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.)
All of this is incorrect. Emanation spells with a range of self are not cast at any creature other than self. They are AoE spells, not direct targeting spells. Such a spell is cast on the spellcaster, as stated in the rules for Range. Emanation spells are functionally the same as spherical AoE spells with just a couple of minor differences -- the affected area moves with the origin creature, and the origin creature is not affected:
A Sphere is an area of effect that extends in straight lines from a point of origin outward in all directions. The effect that creates a Sphere specifies the distance it extends as the radius of the Sphere.
A Sphere’s point of origin is included in the Sphere’s area of effect.
and
An Emanation is an area of effect that extends in straight lines from a creature or an object in all directions. The effect that creates an Emanation specifies the distance it extends.
An Emanation moves with the creature or object that is its origin unless it is an instantaneous or a stationary effect.
An Emanation’s origin (creature or object) isn’t included in the area of effect unless its creator decides otherwise.
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.)
All of this is incorrect. Emanation spells with a range of self are not cast at any creature other than self.
I don't know what to tell you, sibling. Your argument is hollow, and directly contradicted by the rules.
The target entry in the glossary says "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." The caster's "self" can be a target, but only if the spell says so...
Warcaster says "The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature." Doesn't say anything about what you're casting "at" vs effect targets, or anything like that. Certainly doesn't mention points of origin or areas of effect.
Range of self means "The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them".
Nowhere does range of self define the target. In either PHB.
(In 2014, it says that spells that target the caster, like Shield, will have a range of self, but that's not the same as saying all spells with range of self target the caster --- don't fall for the simple logic error.)
None of the 2024 spells have "Range: self (<distance>)"; they all appear to have been replaced with "Range: self" and an Emanation area specified in the spell description.
Though the 2014 era spells like Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade still use the "self (<sphere radius>)" format, which references "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" from the 2014 range rules. Still not targetting the caster.
True Strike (et al) doesn't even bother with that. It just says "Range: self" and the description says "you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting."
[...] None of the 2024 spells have "Range: self (<distance>)"; they all appear to have been replaced with "Range: self" and an Emanation area specified in the spell description.
Though the 2014 era spells like Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade still use the "self (<sphere radius>)" format, which references "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" from the 2014 range rules. Still not targetting the caster.[...]
Thank you for pointing this out. I didn't notice it, but it makes sense when we take into account the words from the Dev in the video you posted. I transcribed part of the conversation a few months ago, and one related thing that comes to mind is this:
timestamp: people also have wondered how did these interact with War Caster. A feat that allows you to make an opportunity attack with a spell as long as you target only one thing with that opportunity attack. And so then the question is "Can you use booming blade with its new range of self parentheses to make that opportunity attack as defined by War Caster?". The answer is yes and the reason why it goes back to what I was saying about our rules on Range where you'll notice that as soon as we get to the Self parentheses part we don't talk about you targeting yourself because spells in this category you have to look at the spell to see what exactly are you targeting because all Self parentheses tells us some magic is extending out from me [and] we'll see who are, what it's targeting, and in the case of Booming Blade who or what's being targeted is the person you attack with it [...]
Your argument is hollow, and directly contradicted by the rules.
My arguments are always solid and are always directly supported by the rules. I quote the rules directly by cutting and pasting the exact words from the text into the quote and then I explain what those words say for others who are confused.
The target entry in the glossary says "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." The caster's "self" can be a target, but only if the spell says so...
This Glossary entry for Target only covers the 2nd connotation -- the one that describes a creature currently being victimized by something that is happening to it. It's used as a catch-all in place of the phrase "affected creatures and objects". In 2014, it wasn't even clear that this connotation of the term should even be used at all. All of the rules for targeting in the Combat chapter and the Spellcasting chapter were using a different connotation, but this connotation would just pop up here and there in a few spell descriptions and in a couple of other places in the PHB and the DMG without the term ever being defined in that way for those usages. Now, in 2024, the term is properly defined for those usages so that the term "target" can now be used either way by the game rules.
The Glossary entry is also a broad definition that is attempting to apply to many situations including mundane weapon attacks, non-magical effects and so on. However, the Glossary entry does not cover the 1st connotation for the term, which is the process of "aiming at" someone or something or someplace. Because of that, the Glossary entry actually does not cover the concept of spell targeting. It describes the target of an effect that causes a saving throw, but it does not describe the target of a spell.
To learn the rules for the target of a spell, you must actually read the spellcasting chapter, which in 2024 has been renamed the "Spells" chapter. In that chapter, there is an entire section called "Targets" (Spells --> Casting Spells --> Effects --> Targets) which describes the rules for spell targeting.
We know that these rules for spell targeting must be different than the rules described in the "Target" Glossary entry because the Glossary entry only describes possible targets as being a "creature or object". But in the rules for spell targeting we have this:
A spell’s description says whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or something else.
The reason for this difference is because this connotation for the term is not just describing a victim. It is discussing the aiming process for your spell. Spells are not always aimed at a creature or object. Sometimes they are aimed at something like a castle or a large body of water, neither of which qualify as "objects" as defined by the game. Sometimes they are aimed at a floor or wall -- also not an object. Sometimes they are aimed at a point in space.
We also have this rule for spell targeting, which was a core rule in 2014 and remains so in 2024:
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.
For anyone that's played the game or even seen it played for longer than 5 minutes, it should be extremely obvious that this is not referring to individual creatures that happen to be caught in your Fireball's blast radius. That would make no sense. Your Fireball would have holes and slices all throughout its area because you don't have a clear path to some of these individual creatures.
Just like the rule for Range makes it clear that these individual creatures can be outside of the range (the 2024 change to that wording helped very much to clear that up), the rule for spell targeting is obviously talking about where you are allowed to aim your spell. The target of the Fireball spell is a point in space -- that point in space must be within Range and you must have a clear path to that point in space. If you do, you can cause your Fireball to have its effect originate from that point in space and expand outwards as described by the rules for a sphere and it is able to affect all of those creatures who were behind total cover. If you do not interpret the spell targeting rules in this way, then you are going to have a really hard time getting your Fireball spell to work correctly.
Next, there is a whole subsection within the Targets section dedicated to explaining the concept of Areas of Effect. The reason why it's important for the rules to more fully explain the targeting rules for this particular case is because this is where the distinction between the target of the spell and the target of an effect becomes important. In all other spells, when you directly target a creature, such as with Magic Missile or Sacred Flame, the two connotations of the term "Target" align. You aim your spell directly at a creature in order to cause that creature to be "affected by the spell's magic". Then, when the spell is cast, an effect is created there (at or within that creature). That effect now targets that creature by causing the attack roll or saving throw mechanic, which may or may not be successful. Those spell descriptions use the term "target" because it really doesn't matter if the reader understands whether or not it's talking about the target of the spell (it is) or the target of the effect (it's not), because it's the same creature in those cases.
But when it comes to areas of effect it's not that simple. For an area of effect, you target the point of origin with your spell as described by the rules for each type of area. The effect "originates" there and expands outwards as described by the rules defined in each possible individual shape for an AoE. "The area determines what the spell targets." Not the spell description -- the area.
But now, in 2024, we can also refer to affected creatures as targets. But those are not targets of the spell. They are targets of the effect. Since these two things are different in these cases, in order to avoid confusion, the game designers systematically removed all mention of the word "Target" from every single AoE spell in the game -- deliberately and intentionally and for this exact reason. (I think I found exactly one spell description that was missed last time around that we were discussing this topic.) All that you have to do is look at the 2014 Fireball description and then look at the 2024 Fireball description. The term target has been removed. They are deliberately avoiding the confusion of trying to explain what the spell is targeting (the point in space) vs what the effect is targeting (the creatures within the blast radius).
Warcaster says "The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature." Doesn't say anything about what you're casting "at" vs effect targets, or anything like that. Certainly doesn't mention points of origin or areas of effect.
I'm not sure if perhaps you are looking at the 2024 version of the Feat.
In 2014, which is what that discussion was about at the time, the Feat said this:
When a hostile creature's movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature.
Range of self means "The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them".
That's exactly correct and that's what I have been explaining to you. Such spells are impossible to cast at any creature other than the spellcaster. If it's an AoE spell, the spellcaster is the point of origin. If that AoE spell is an Emanation spell, it functions very similarly to a spherical AoE spell that is centered on the spellcaster as I've previously quoted above. Spells like this are explicitly different than spells such as Magic Missile or Sacred Flame, which ARE cast AT another creature. Spells with a range of self simply do not work like that no matter how hard you try.
Nowhere does range of self define the target. In either PHB.
(In 2014, it says that spells that target the caster, like Shield, will have a range of self, but that's not the same as saying all spells with range of self target the caster --- don't fall for the simple logic error.)
This is false. In 2014 it was actually quite simple:
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range.
In 2024, you would have to actually understand that the location where "the spell’s effect can originate" means the target of the spell -- they are just spelling it out that way in the Range definition for clarity. But if you don't like that, then you just look at how the range of self is defined:
Self. The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them
It spells it out for you clear as day what the target of the spell is when the Range is self.
None of the 2024 spells have "Range: self (<distance>)"; they all appear to have been replaced with "Range: self" and an Emanation area specified in the spell description.
That's correct. By definition, every single Emanation spell with a Range of "self" targets the spellcaster. That's what you are casting your spell on. It's where the Emanation effect originates. Now, the Emanation effect that is created in the surrounding area might "target" other creatures using the other connotation of the term, but the spell targets the spellcaster.
Though the 2014 era spells like Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade still use the "self (<sphere radius>)" format, which references "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" from the 2014 range rules. Still not targetting the caster.
Still targeting the spellcaster. The spell has to be put somewhere in order for it to erupt into existence. That's the spellcaster's location. When the range is "self" there is no other possibility. The effect of the spell must originate within the Range.
True Strike (et al) doesn't even bother with that. It just says "Range: self" and the description says "you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting."
That's correct. In the specific case of True Strike, it's not even an AoE spell. It just directly targets the spellcaster. The spell is just buffing the spellcaster by causing a "magical insight" to occur within himself. The spell has a Range of "self" and in order to make this happen he obviously targets himself with the spell. The distance away from the origin of the spell that can be affected by the remainder of the resulting spell effect is limited only by the range of the weapon that was used as the spell component -- a longbow has a long range of 600 feet, for example. But that has nothing to do with the target of the spell, which is the spellcaster.
The target entry in the glossary says "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." The caster's "self" can be a target, but only if the spell says so...
This Glossary entry for Target only covers the 2nd connotation -- the one that describes a creature currently being victimized by something that is happening to it.
No, you are confused, or just wrong. They have literally defined "target," right there, so you do not need to look elsewhere to understand the term. That is the only connotation of target that is relevant. You might cast the spell "on" or "at" yourself, or your weapon, or anything else; that does not define the "target."
I get the confusion. This whole thing (spellcasting) is an abstract concept. The rules for Areas of Effect override the rules for clear paths, and the Emanation rules within even say "An Emanation’s origin (creature or object) isn’t included in the area of effect unless its creator decides otherwise." So sure, you can swing your Booming Blade weapon or True Strike weapon at yourself; go nuts (though you can't attack yourself as an AoO).
Dear readers (I'm assuming up2ng doesn't want me to call them "dear"), this line of argument continues to confuse "point of origin" with "target." They can be the same thing, like how a an enemy at the center of your Fireball can and will be damaged by the spell, but it is important not to conflate the two things. A spell like Fire Bolt has no point of origin.
Nowhere does range of self define the target. In either PHB.
(In 2014, it says that spells that target the caster, like Shield, will have a range of self, but that's not the same as saying all spells with range of self target the caster --- don't fall for the simple logic error.)
This is false. In 2014 it was actually quite simple:
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range.
This is an excellent illustration of the (understandable) confusion.
In 2014, "Range: self (<sphere radius>)" literally defines the range of the spell as within a radius of the caster. For Booming Blade (et al), the target of the spell effects, which is the target of the weapon attack, must be within that radius.
And honestly, "assume that 'Range: self (<sphere radius>)' is a subset of 'Range: self' and all the terms of 'Range: self' still apply" is a pretty natural mistake to make. I'm glad they replaced this with the new Emanation rules.
In 2024, "Range: self" with an Emanation radius in the spell now means the same thing. The target must be within range of the Emanation (which is why Emanation was defined as "new" sort of Area of Effect. This cleans up the Area of Effect and Range rules immensely.
True Strike (et al) doesn't even bother with that. It just says "Range: self" and the description says "you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting."
True Strike also uses your spellcasting mod for the attack roll, which for me is very strong evidence (RAI, at least) that the attack roll is tied to the cantrip, not the weapon
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)
True Strike also uses your spellcasting mod for the attack roll, which for me is very strong evidence (RAI, at least) that the attack roll is tied to the cantrip, not the weapon
If the attack roll was tied to the spell, it would say to use your spell attack modifier. Using your spellcasting ability mod is just the equivalent of the finesse trait.
True Strike also uses your spellcasting mod for the attack roll, which for me is very strong evidence (RAI, at least) that the attack roll is tied to the cantrip, not the weapon
If the attack roll was tied to the spell, it would say to use your spell attack modifier. Using your spellcasting ability mod is just the equivalent of the finesse trait.
The magical equivalent, yes. Which is the point.
magic stone has similar wording -- would you not consider it a "damaging cantrip" either?
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If the attack roll was tied to the spell, it would say to use your spell attack modifier. Using your spellcasting ability mod is just the equivalent of the finesse trait.
There is no way to cast the spell and not make the attack, barring reaction shenanigans. Potent Cantrip doesn't require a spell attack anyways.
magic stone has similar wording -- would you not consider it a "damaging cantrip" either?
Magic stone does not has similar wording -- it specifies making a ranged spell attack -- and is also not a damaging cantrip (it's enhancing an item, and the item is then used to make an attack). The most similar spell is shillelagh.
The target entry in the glossary says "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." The caster's "self" can be a target, but only if the spell says so...
This Glossary entry for Target only covers the 2nd connotation -- the one that describes a creature currently being victimized by something that is happening to it.
No, you are confused, or just wrong.
Incorrect.
My mind is clear and everything that I've said is correct. I have directly quoted the text and explained its meaning.
They have literally defined "target," right there, so you do not need to look elsewhere to understand the term. That is the only connotation of target that is relevant.
That is absolutely not the proper way to use the Rules Glossary. You do not read a one sentence definition for a term and then bury your head in the sand and subsequently completely ignore entire pages of text that are dedicated to describing and explaining the game concept and mechanic that corresponds to that term. That is honestly totally ridiculous.
I mean, I guess you could do that if you really wanted to. You do you. But then you wouldn't be playing according to the Rules as Written.
I get the confusion. This whole thing (spellcasting) is an abstract concept.
I'm sorry if this concept is confusing to you. I've been doing my best to explain it to you. You just have to follow along through my posts where I have directly quoted the written text and then explained what it means.
The rules for Areas of Effect override the rules for clear paths
Absolutely not. They don't do anything of the sort.
The rules for spell targeting, including the clear path rule, describe the requirements that must be met in order to target your spell.
The rules for Areas of Effect describe what needs to be targeted in order to affect the particular desired area with your spell's magic. Once this point of origin is targeted by your spell, the effect spreads outwards from there in the manner described in the rules for Areas of Effect. That has nothing at all to do with requiring a clear path to target your spell.
Example -- Fireball:
"A bright streak flashes from you to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into a fiery explosion. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius Sphere centered on that point makes a Dexterity saving throw, taking 8d6 Fire damage on a failed save or half as much damage on a successful one."
If you do not consider "to a point you choose within range" to be the target of this spell . . . then can you cause this Fireball spell to erupt inside of a nearby totally enclosed building while you are standing outside? Why or why not? Only the target of the spell is required to be accessible to you via a clear path. Why can't I cast my Fireball into the nearby enclosed building? Or inside someone else's Tiny Hut?
and the Emanation rules within even say "An Emanation’s origin (creature or object) isn’t included in the area of effect unless its creator decides otherwise." So sure, you can swing your Booming Blade weapon or True Strike weapon at yourself; go nuts (though you can't attack yourself as an AoO).
What in the world does this have to do with anything? An Emanation spell is just an AoE spell. It functions very similarly to a Sphere AoE with a couple of minor rule differences. If the Emanation spell has a range of self and emanates from the spellcaster then the spellcaster was targeted by the spell. That's extremely obvious. It's just that in the case of an Emanation the spellcaster is not included in the resulting effect.
Dear readers (I'm assuming up2ng doesn't want me to call them "dear"), this line of argument continues to confuse "point of origin" with "target." They can be the same thing, like how a an enemy at the center of your Fireball can and will be damaged by the spell, but it is important not to conflate the two things. A spell like Fire Bolt has no point of origin.
In fact, the point of origin IS the target of your spell for AoE spells. That's where the effect originates. When you cast a spell, it "travels" from the spellcaster to the target (along a clear path). For spells such as Fire Bolt, as you mentioned, there is no point of origin per se. The creature is the target of the spell, and that same creature is also targeted by the resulting spell effect that is created there.
However, the purpose of casting a spell is to cause something "to be affected by the spell’s magic". Various spells do this in different ways. For spells that are designed to affect a creature or an object, the spell target is the same as the target of the effect. For AoE spells it's not.
The design of an AoE spell is to attempt to cause an area to be affected by the spell's magic. You do this by targeting the point of origin, which is described in the rules for the particular type of area in question, and as a result an effect fills up the area with magic. (Hence . . . Area. Of. Effect.) This effect might then target a creature using the definition from the Glossary. It's very simple. This is all described in the actual rules for spell targeting in the Spells chapter -- not in the Glossary entry.
In 2014, "Range: self (<sphere radius>)" literally defines the range of the spell as within a radius of the caster.
Absolutely not. The range of these spells was "self". The target of these spells was the spellcaster. The radius referred to the size of the resulting effect that was centered at the spellcaster. This is basically the old notation for an Emanation spell. The size of the effect for these spells has been moved into the spell descriptions where it belongs.
And honestly, "assume that 'Range: self (<sphere radius>)' is a subset of 'Range: self' and all the terms of 'Range: self' still apply" is a pretty natural mistake to make. I'm glad they replaced this with the new Emanation rules.
In 2024, "Range: self" with an Emanation radius in the spell now means the same thing. The target must be within range of the Emanation (which is why Emanation was defined as "new" sort of Area of Effect. This cleans up the Area of Effect and Range rules immensely.
This is correct. And guess what the range of the Emanation is? Self.
These Emanation spells have a range of self and therefore the spellcaster is targeted in order to create the effect at the spellcaster's location. Just like I can cast my Fireball spell "over there" . . . for these Emanation spells I am required to cast that spell "right here".
The spell description for the Emanation spell will describe the size of the sphere that is filled with the spell effect that is centered on the spellcaster. That effect might then subsequently "target" other creatures using the Glossary definition of the term.
In 2024, the area determines what the spell targets. So for a spell like Thunderwave, the target is not you because the range is self, it's each creature in a 15-foot Cube originating from you, which doesn't include you as the Cube’s point of origin unless you decide otherwise.
For an Emanation it’s origin also isn’t included in the area of effect unless its creator decides otherwise, again, the spell will determine what the spell targets.
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. The description of a spell specifies whether it has an area of effect, which is typically one of these shapes: Cone, Cube, Cylinder, Emanation, Line, or Sphere.
In 2024, the area determines what the spell targets.
Spell targeting is actually inconsistently handled, because as written there A clear path to the target applies to AoE spells, so if you launch a fireball at a corner in a passageway, targets behind the corner are not affected.
The intent of the rule is, presumably, that for area effects it should be A clear path to the origin, but it's not what was actually stated, and this supports believing that in some cases 'target' actually means 'origin'.
The rules for Areas of Effect override the rules for clear paths
Absolutely not. They don't do anything of the sort.
Of course they do. "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. The description of a spell specifies whether it has an area of effect, which is typically one of these shapes: Cone, Cube, Cylinder, Emanation, Line, or Sphere." That bolded part overrides the previous targetting rules. Specifically, the area-of-effect rules add a "point of origin" as an intermediary.
A spell like Fire Bolt doesn't have point of origin, properly, because it's not an area of effect. Philosophically, you could say the point of origin is the tip of your finger, or your focus, or the spot on your forehead where the third eye would be, or... (actually, the rules only really express an opinion on this for an Artillerist using an Arcane Firearm, and that's a pretty indirect reference). The target is whatever you are hitting. In a gunshot metaphor, the target is the target, the gun is the gun.
For a spell like Fireball (or other traditional area-of-effect blaster spell), it's more like throwing a hand grenade. The spot you throw at is called the "point of origin." The target(s) are whatever get caught in the blast. The point of origin needs to be in your line of sight (etc), but the targets do not. (In 2024, they need to be in line of sight of the point of origin, because fireball blasts no longer go around corners.) And if a creature happened to be at the point of origin (some poor kobold caught the grenade...), then they count as a target, too. Same for a flammable object that would now be burning. But that point in space, itself, does not fit the definition of target given in the glossary.
For a self/emanation spell, the point of origin is the caster, the range is the range of the emanation extending from the self, and the target(s) must be within the emanation. This is why "target" has a glossary definition, and why they called out emanations as new kind of area of effect (only kinda new, but new terminology). It's also why targets are exclusively declared in the spell description, not in the range or the casting time or any other special field (which was true in 2014 as well).
The rules for Areas of Effect override the rules for clear paths
Absolutely not. They don't do anything of the sort.
Of course they do. "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.
Which has absolutely zero interaction with the clear target rules. An exception could be stated... but it isn't.
magic stone has similar wording -- would you not consider it a "damaging cantrip" either?
Magic stone does not has similar wording -- it specifies making a ranged spell attack -- and is also not a damaging cantrip (it's enhancing an item, and the item is then used to make an attack). The most similar spell is shillelagh.
I really want to know what you think the word "similar" means, considering all three spells have language that isn't identical but which indicates the usage of the caster's spellcasting mod for any attack and damage rolls -- which is what we were talking about
Anyway, in all three cases the cantrip is changing the damage dealt by the weapon in some form or other -- by changing the ability mod used, the damage die, and/or the type of damage dealt. That to me is unquestionably a "damaging cantrip"
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)
In 2024, the area determines what the spell targets.
Spell targeting is actually inconsistently handled, because as written there A clear path to the target applies to AoE spells, so if you launch a fireball at a corner in a passageway, targets behind the corner are not affected.
The intent of the rule is, presumably, that for area effects it should be A clear path to the origin, but it's not what was actually stated, and this supports believing that in some cases 'target' actually means 'origin'.
I don't see the inconsistency. The target of a Fireball is each creature in a 20-foot-radius Sphere centered on that point, so if the caster doesn't have a clear path to any of those creature because they're behind Total Cover the creature won't be affected by it.
Such sphere being an area of effect that extends in straight lines from the origin point means any location blocked by obstruction providing Total Cover such as walls isn’t included in the area of effect as well.
Targets: A typical spell requires the caster to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic. A spell’s description says whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or something else.
Area of Effect: If all straight lines extending from the point of origin to a location in the area of effect are blocked, that location isn’t included in the area of effect. To block a line, an obstruction must provide Total Cover.
I don't see the inconsistency. The target of a Fireball is each creature in a 20-foot-radius Sphere centered on that point, so if the caster doesn't have a clear path to any of those creature because they're behind Total Cover the creature won't be affected by it.
Such sphere being an area of effect that extends in straight lines from the origin point means any location blocked by obstruction providing Total Cover such as walls isn’t included in the area of effect as well.
Let's say we have a dungeon shaped like
----------- W ****F*| -------***| |..*| |M..|
Where W is the wizard, F is the emanation point of the fireball, and M is the wizard.
The area marked with * is within the radius of the fireball, and also the wizard has line of effect on it.
The area marked with . is within the radius of the fireball, and the wizard does not have line of effect on it.
M is within the area marked with a .
As written, M is not affected by the fireball (nor is anything else in the area marked with a .); only creatures in the area marked with a * are affected, because the wizard does not have a clear path to the target. Do you really think that's the intended behavior?
The rules for Areas of Effect override the rules for clear paths
Absolutely not. They don't do anything of the sort.
Of course they do. "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.
Which has absolutely zero interaction with the clear target rules. An exception could be stated... but it isn't.
Except it is
Area of Effect (2024)
An area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the effect’s energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how to position its point of origin. If all straight lines extending from the point of origin to a location in the area of effect are blocked, that location isn’t included in the area of effect. To block a line, an obstruction must provide Total Cover. See also “Cover.”
Saying the new AoE rules "override" the clear path rules might be a bit confusing. The target of an AoE, for the purposes of the Total Cover rules, is its point of origin. The clear path rules still apply for creatures affected by the AoE -- the path just has to originate from the point of origin of the AoE, not from the caster
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)
Saying the new AoE rules "override" the clear path rules might be a bit confusing. The target of an AoE, for the purposes of the Total Cover rules, is its point of origin. The clear path rules still apply for creatures affected by the AoE -- the path just has to originate from the point of origin of the AoE, not from the caster
People have just been claiming that the target of an AoE is the actual creature affected by the AoE. The emanation point of an AoE is not called a target and might not even be a target (as for a cube area effect, the emanation point is not even required to be in the area).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok, good luck with that. In actual fact, you'll do as the mods allow.
All of this is incorrect. Emanation spells with a range of self are not cast at any creature other than self. They are AoE spells, not direct targeting spells. Such a spell is cast on the spellcaster, as stated in the rules for Range. Emanation spells are functionally the same as spherical AoE spells with just a couple of minor differences -- the affected area moves with the origin creature, and the origin creature is not affected:
and
I don't know what to tell you, sibling. Your argument is hollow, and directly contradicted by the rules.
Thank you for pointing this out. I didn't notice it, but it makes sense when we take into account the words from the Dev in the video you posted. I transcribed part of the conversation a few months ago, and one related thing that comes to mind is this:
I am not your sibling, and now you really are being warned.
My arguments are always solid and are always directly supported by the rules. I quote the rules directly by cutting and pasting the exact words from the text into the quote and then I explain what those words say for others who are confused.
This Glossary entry for Target only covers the 2nd connotation -- the one that describes a creature currently being victimized by something that is happening to it. It's used as a catch-all in place of the phrase "affected creatures and objects". In 2014, it wasn't even clear that this connotation of the term should even be used at all. All of the rules for targeting in the Combat chapter and the Spellcasting chapter were using a different connotation, but this connotation would just pop up here and there in a few spell descriptions and in a couple of other places in the PHB and the DMG without the term ever being defined in that way for those usages. Now, in 2024, the term is properly defined for those usages so that the term "target" can now be used either way by the game rules.
The Glossary entry is also a broad definition that is attempting to apply to many situations including mundane weapon attacks, non-magical effects and so on. However, the Glossary entry does not cover the 1st connotation for the term, which is the process of "aiming at" someone or something or someplace. Because of that, the Glossary entry actually does not cover the concept of spell targeting. It describes the target of an effect that causes a saving throw, but it does not describe the target of a spell.
To learn the rules for the target of a spell, you must actually read the spellcasting chapter, which in 2024 has been renamed the "Spells" chapter. In that chapter, there is an entire section called "Targets" (Spells --> Casting Spells --> Effects --> Targets) which describes the rules for spell targeting.
We know that these rules for spell targeting must be different than the rules described in the "Target" Glossary entry because the Glossary entry only describes possible targets as being a "creature or object". But in the rules for spell targeting we have this:
The reason for this difference is because this connotation for the term is not just describing a victim. It is discussing the aiming process for your spell. Spells are not always aimed at a creature or object. Sometimes they are aimed at something like a castle or a large body of water, neither of which qualify as "objects" as defined by the game. Sometimes they are aimed at a floor or wall -- also not an object. Sometimes they are aimed at a point in space.
We also have this rule for spell targeting, which was a core rule in 2014 and remains so in 2024:
For anyone that's played the game or even seen it played for longer than 5 minutes, it should be extremely obvious that this is not referring to individual creatures that happen to be caught in your Fireball's blast radius. That would make no sense. Your Fireball would have holes and slices all throughout its area because you don't have a clear path to some of these individual creatures.
Just like the rule for Range makes it clear that these individual creatures can be outside of the range (the 2024 change to that wording helped very much to clear that up), the rule for spell targeting is obviously talking about where you are allowed to aim your spell. The target of the Fireball spell is a point in space -- that point in space must be within Range and you must have a clear path to that point in space. If you do, you can cause your Fireball to have its effect originate from that point in space and expand outwards as described by the rules for a sphere and it is able to affect all of those creatures who were behind total cover. If you do not interpret the spell targeting rules in this way, then you are going to have a really hard time getting your Fireball spell to work correctly.
Next, there is a whole subsection within the Targets section dedicated to explaining the concept of Areas of Effect. The reason why it's important for the rules to more fully explain the targeting rules for this particular case is because this is where the distinction between the target of the spell and the target of an effect becomes important. In all other spells, when you directly target a creature, such as with Magic Missile or Sacred Flame, the two connotations of the term "Target" align. You aim your spell directly at a creature in order to cause that creature to be "affected by the spell's magic". Then, when the spell is cast, an effect is created there (at or within that creature). That effect now targets that creature by causing the attack roll or saving throw mechanic, which may or may not be successful. Those spell descriptions use the term "target" because it really doesn't matter if the reader understands whether or not it's talking about the target of the spell (it is) or the target of the effect (it's not), because it's the same creature in those cases.
But when it comes to areas of effect it's not that simple. For an area of effect, you target the point of origin with your spell as described by the rules for each type of area. The effect "originates" there and expands outwards as described by the rules defined in each possible individual shape for an AoE. "The area determines what the spell targets." Not the spell description -- the area.
But now, in 2024, we can also refer to affected creatures as targets. But those are not targets of the spell. They are targets of the effect. Since these two things are different in these cases, in order to avoid confusion, the game designers systematically removed all mention of the word "Target" from every single AoE spell in the game -- deliberately and intentionally and for this exact reason. (I think I found exactly one spell description that was missed last time around that we were discussing this topic.) All that you have to do is look at the 2014 Fireball description and then look at the 2024 Fireball description. The term target has been removed. They are deliberately avoiding the confusion of trying to explain what the spell is targeting (the point in space) vs what the effect is targeting (the creatures within the blast radius).
I'm not sure if perhaps you are looking at the 2024 version of the Feat.
In 2014, which is what that discussion was about at the time, the Feat said this:
That's exactly correct and that's what I have been explaining to you. Such spells are impossible to cast at any creature other than the spellcaster. If it's an AoE spell, the spellcaster is the point of origin. If that AoE spell is an Emanation spell, it functions very similarly to a spherical AoE spell that is centered on the spellcaster as I've previously quoted above. Spells like this are explicitly different than spells such as Magic Missile or Sacred Flame, which ARE cast AT another creature. Spells with a range of self simply do not work like that no matter how hard you try.
This is false. In 2014 it was actually quite simple:
In 2024, you would have to actually understand that the location where "the spell’s effect can originate" means the target of the spell -- they are just spelling it out that way in the Range definition for clarity. But if you don't like that, then you just look at how the range of self is defined:
It spells it out for you clear as day what the target of the spell is when the Range is self.
That's correct. By definition, every single Emanation spell with a Range of "self" targets the spellcaster. That's what you are casting your spell on. It's where the Emanation effect originates. Now, the Emanation effect that is created in the surrounding area might "target" other creatures using the other connotation of the term, but the spell targets the spellcaster.
Still targeting the spellcaster. The spell has to be put somewhere in order for it to erupt into existence. That's the spellcaster's location. When the range is "self" there is no other possibility. The effect of the spell must originate within the Range.
That's correct. In the specific case of True Strike, it's not even an AoE spell. It just directly targets the spellcaster. The spell is just buffing the spellcaster by causing a "magical insight" to occur within himself. The spell has a Range of "self" and in order to make this happen he obviously targets himself with the spell. The distance away from the origin of the spell that can be affected by the remainder of the resulting spell effect is limited only by the range of the weapon that was used as the spell component -- a longbow has a long range of 600 feet, for example. But that has nothing to do with the target of the spell, which is the spellcaster.
No, you are confused, or just wrong. They have literally defined "target," right there, so you do not need to look elsewhere to understand the term. That is the only connotation of target that is relevant. You might cast the spell "on" or "at" yourself, or your weapon, or anything else; that does not define the "target."
I get the confusion. This whole thing (spellcasting) is an abstract concept. The rules for Areas of Effect override the rules for clear paths, and the Emanation rules within even say "An Emanation’s origin (creature or object) isn’t included in the area of effect unless its creator decides otherwise." So sure, you can swing your Booming Blade weapon or True Strike weapon at yourself; go nuts (though you can't attack yourself as an AoO).
Dear readers (I'm assuming up2ng doesn't want me to call them "dear"), this line of argument continues to confuse "point of origin" with "target." They can be the same thing, like how a an enemy at the center of your Fireball can and will be damaged by the spell, but it is important not to conflate the two things. A spell like Fire Bolt has no point of origin.
This is an excellent illustration of the (understandable) confusion.
In 2014, "Range: self (<sphere radius>)" literally defines the range of the spell as within a radius of the caster. For Booming Blade (et al), the target of the spell effects, which is the target of the weapon attack, must be within that radius.
In 2024, "Range: self" with an Emanation radius in the spell now means the same thing. The target must be within range of the Emanation (which is why Emanation was defined as "new" sort of Area of Effect. This cleans up the Area of Effect and Range rules immensely.
True Strike also uses your spellcasting mod for the attack roll, which for me is very strong evidence (RAI, at least) that the attack roll is tied to the cantrip, not the weapon
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If the attack roll was tied to the spell, it would say to use your spell attack modifier. Using your spellcasting ability mod is just the equivalent of the finesse trait.
The magical equivalent, yes. Which is the point.
magic stone has similar wording -- would you not consider it a "damaging cantrip" either?
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)
There is no way to cast the spell and not make the attack, barring reaction shenanigans. Potent Cantrip doesn't require a spell attack anyways.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Magic stone does not has similar wording -- it specifies making a ranged spell attack -- and is also not a damaging cantrip (it's enhancing an item, and the item is then used to make an attack). The most similar spell is shillelagh.
Incorrect.
My mind is clear and everything that I've said is correct. I have directly quoted the text and explained its meaning.
That is absolutely not the proper way to use the Rules Glossary. You do not read a one sentence definition for a term and then bury your head in the sand and subsequently completely ignore entire pages of text that are dedicated to describing and explaining the game concept and mechanic that corresponds to that term. That is honestly totally ridiculous.
I mean, I guess you could do that if you really wanted to. You do you. But then you wouldn't be playing according to the Rules as Written.
I'm sorry if this concept is confusing to you. I've been doing my best to explain it to you. You just have to follow along through my posts where I have directly quoted the written text and then explained what it means.
Absolutely not. They don't do anything of the sort.
The rules for spell targeting, including the clear path rule, describe the requirements that must be met in order to target your spell.
The rules for Areas of Effect describe what needs to be targeted in order to affect the particular desired area with your spell's magic. Once this point of origin is targeted by your spell, the effect spreads outwards from there in the manner described in the rules for Areas of Effect. That has nothing at all to do with requiring a clear path to target your spell.
Example -- Fireball:
"A bright streak flashes from you to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into a fiery explosion. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius Sphere centered on that point makes a Dexterity saving throw, taking 8d6 Fire damage on a failed save or half as much damage on a successful one."
If you do not consider "to a point you choose within range" to be the target of this spell . . . then can you cause this Fireball spell to erupt inside of a nearby totally enclosed building while you are standing outside? Why or why not? Only the target of the spell is required to be accessible to you via a clear path. Why can't I cast my Fireball into the nearby enclosed building? Or inside someone else's Tiny Hut?
What in the world does this have to do with anything? An Emanation spell is just an AoE spell. It functions very similarly to a Sphere AoE with a couple of minor rule differences. If the Emanation spell has a range of self and emanates from the spellcaster then the spellcaster was targeted by the spell. That's extremely obvious. It's just that in the case of an Emanation the spellcaster is not included in the resulting effect.
In fact, the point of origin IS the target of your spell for AoE spells. That's where the effect originates. When you cast a spell, it "travels" from the spellcaster to the target (along a clear path). For spells such as Fire Bolt, as you mentioned, there is no point of origin per se. The creature is the target of the spell, and that same creature is also targeted by the resulting spell effect that is created there.
However, the purpose of casting a spell is to cause something "to be affected by the spell’s magic". Various spells do this in different ways. For spells that are designed to affect a creature or an object, the spell target is the same as the target of the effect. For AoE spells it's not.
The design of an AoE spell is to attempt to cause an area to be affected by the spell's magic. You do this by targeting the point of origin, which is described in the rules for the particular type of area in question, and as a result an effect fills up the area with magic. (Hence . . . Area. Of. Effect.) This effect might then target a creature using the definition from the Glossary. It's very simple. This is all described in the actual rules for spell targeting in the Spells chapter -- not in the Glossary entry.
Absolutely not. The range of these spells was "self". The target of these spells was the spellcaster. The radius referred to the size of the resulting effect that was centered at the spellcaster. This is basically the old notation for an Emanation spell. The size of the effect for these spells has been moved into the spell descriptions where it belongs.
I agree with all of this.
This is correct. And guess what the range of the Emanation is? Self.
These Emanation spells have a range of self and therefore the spellcaster is targeted in order to create the effect at the spellcaster's location. Just like I can cast my Fireball spell "over there" . . . for these Emanation spells I am required to cast that spell "right here".
The spell description for the Emanation spell will describe the size of the sphere that is filled with the spell effect that is centered on the spellcaster. That effect might then subsequently "target" other creatures using the Glossary definition of the term.
In 2024, the area determines what the spell targets. So for a spell like Thunderwave, the target is not you because the range is self, it's each creature in a 15-foot Cube originating from you, which doesn't include you as the Cube’s point of origin unless you decide otherwise.
For an Emanation it’s origin also isn’t included in the area of effect unless its creator decides otherwise, again, the spell will determine what the spell targets.
Spell targeting is actually inconsistently handled, because as written there A clear path to the target applies to AoE spells, so if you launch a fireball at a corner in a passageway, targets behind the corner are not affected.
The intent of the rule is, presumably, that for area effects it should be A clear path to the origin, but it's not what was actually stated, and this supports believing that in some cases 'target' actually means 'origin'.
Of course they do. "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. The description of a spell specifies whether it has an area of effect, which is typically one of these shapes: Cone, Cube, Cylinder, Emanation, Line, or Sphere." That bolded part overrides the previous targetting rules. Specifically, the area-of-effect rules add a "point of origin" as an intermediary.
A spell like Fire Bolt doesn't have point of origin, properly, because it's not an area of effect. Philosophically, you could say the point of origin is the tip of your finger, or your focus, or the spot on your forehead where the third eye would be, or... (actually, the rules only really express an opinion on this for an Artillerist using an Arcane Firearm, and that's a pretty indirect reference). The target is whatever you are hitting. In a gunshot metaphor, the target is the target, the gun is the gun.
For a spell like Fireball (or other traditional area-of-effect blaster spell), it's more like throwing a hand grenade. The spot you throw at is called the "point of origin." The target(s) are whatever get caught in the blast. The point of origin needs to be in your line of sight (etc), but the targets do not. (In 2024, they need to be in line of sight of the point of origin, because fireball blasts no longer go around corners.) And if a creature happened to be at the point of origin (some poor kobold caught the grenade...), then they count as a target, too. Same for a flammable object that would now be burning. But that point in space, itself, does not fit the definition of target given in the glossary.
For a self/emanation spell, the point of origin is the caster, the range is the range of the emanation extending from the self, and the target(s) must be within the emanation. This is why "target" has a glossary definition, and why they called out emanations as new kind of area of effect (only kinda new, but new terminology). It's also why targets are exclusively declared in the spell description, not in the range or the casting time or any other special field (which was true in 2014 as well).
Which has absolutely zero interaction with the clear target rules. An exception could be stated... but it isn't.
I really want to know what you think the word "similar" means, considering all three spells have language that isn't identical but which indicates the usage of the caster's spellcasting mod for any attack and damage rolls -- which is what we were talking about
Anyway, in all three cases the cantrip is changing the damage dealt by the weapon in some form or other -- by changing the ability mod used, the damage die, and/or the type of damage dealt. That to me is unquestionably a "damaging cantrip"
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I don't see the inconsistency. The target of a Fireball is each creature in a 20-foot-radius Sphere centered on that point, so if the caster doesn't have a clear path to any of those creature because they're behind Total Cover the creature won't be affected by it.
Such sphere being an area of effect that extends in straight lines from the origin point means any location blocked by obstruction providing Total Cover such as walls isn’t included in the area of effect as well.
Let's say we have a dungeon shaped like
Where W is the wizard, F is the emanation point of the fireball, and M is the wizard.
The area marked with * is within the radius of the fireball, and also the wizard has line of effect on it.
The area marked with . is within the radius of the fireball, and the wizard does not have line of effect on it.
M is within the area marked with a .
As written, M is not affected by the fireball (nor is anything else in the area marked with a .); only creatures in the area marked with a * are affected, because the wizard does not have a clear path to the target. Do you really think that's the intended behavior?
Except it is
Saying the new AoE rules "override" the clear path rules might be a bit confusing. The target of an AoE, for the purposes of the Total Cover rules, is its point of origin. The clear path rules still apply for creatures affected by the AoE -- the path just has to originate from the point of origin of the AoE, not from the caster
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)
People have just been claiming that the target of an AoE is the actual creature affected by the AoE. The emanation point of an AoE is not called a target and might not even be a target (as for a cube area effect, the emanation point is not even required to be in the area).