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.
Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting.
Range
. . .
Self. The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them, as specified in the spell.
True Strike does not emanate from the caster. For it to do that it would have to have a range of Self and then some sort of Area. That means that the spell is cast on the Spellcaster themselves, since that is the only other option. The spellcaster then 'receives the effect of [the] spell' (shown by the use of the word 'you') which causes them to make an attack (the effect of the spell).
You walked right past it. A target is a creature targeted by an attack roll. True strike asks you to make an attack roll. The target of true strike is the target of that attack roll.
No. A target is 'a 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.' You have to take the entire sentence into account since it specifies reasons why it may apply to a creature or object other than one targeted by an attack roll.
In this case the target is 'selected to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon'. In this case 'effect of the spell' is that the target makes an attack using their spellcasting stat instead of Strength or Dexterity and may elect to do Radiant damage. You can tell that because the True Strike says 'you', referring to the caster.
The creature or object being attacked is no more the target of the spell than a creature being attacked by a skeleton is the target of Animate Dead.
You also did not address the fact that the spell has no Area, a requirement for a Self range spell to affect something other than the caster.
A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate, and the spell’s description specifies which part of the effect is limited by the range.
A range usually takes one of the following forms:
Distance. The range is expressed in feet.
Touch. The spell’s effect originates on something the spellcaster must touch, as defined in the spell.
Self. The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them, as specified in the spell.
The effects of a spell are detailed after its duration entry. Those details present exactly what the spell does, which ignores mundane physical laws; any outcomes beyond those effects are under the DM’s purview. Whatever the effects, they typically deal with targets, saving throws, attack rolls, or all three, each of which is detailed below.
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. [...]
A creature who is the target of the effect of a spell may not be forced to make a save or subjected to an attack. There are plenty of examples where the targets of a spell are chosen.
But if the effect of a spell is that they take damage from a weapon attack, then the creature taking that damage is the target of that spell.
[...] The only area I see any real question is if the roll made with True Strike would trigger the Light property for a weapon (as a DM my interpretation is that it would, but that's my interpretation and I'm not about to argue with anyone who would interpret it differently for their game.) [...]
Nick does not work with True Strike unless you cast the cantrip as part of the Attack Action (e.g. thanks to Eldritch Knight's War Magic, College of Valor Bard's Extra Attack, or Bladesinging's Extra Attack).
A creature who is the target of the effect of a spell may not be forced to make a save or subjected to an attack. There are plenty of examples where the targets of a spell are chosen.
But if the effect of a spell is that they take damage from a weapon attack, then the creature taking that damage is the target of that spell.
Is that a rule somewhere? If it is then it is badly written since anyone attacked by a skeleton is 'subjected to an attack' even though they weren't the target of Raise Dead.
No. A target is 'a 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.' You have to take the entire sentence into account since it specifies reasons why it may apply to a creature or object other than one targeted by an attack roll.
In this case the target is 'selected to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon'. In this case 'effect of the spell' is that the target makes an attack using their spellcasting stat instead of Strength or Dexterity and may elect to do Radiant damage. You can tell that because the True Strike says 'you', referring to the caster.
The creature or object being attacked is no more the target of the spell than a creature being attacked by a skeleton is the target of Animate Dead.
You also did not address the fact that the spell has no Area, a requirement for a Self range spell to affect something other than the caster.
This is all 100% correct. This spell targets the spellcaster and causes the spellcaster to become "Guided by a flash of magical insight". The result of this spell effect adds a particular type of weapon attack to the spellcaster's action economy for this turn, which is used immediately. That's the extent of the spell effect. The effect of the spell does not interact with other creatures (no other creatures are even mentioned in the spell description) -- those other creatures (if any) are struck by a mundane weapon attack from a spellcaster that was just (instantaneously) buffed by a spell.
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.
No, it isn't. Nothing in that statement says that a non-target can't take damage as the result of a spell.
If I cast Haste on a Fighter and the fighter then attacks an Orc with the extra action, who is the target?
In the case of True Strike the spell is cast on the caster (Self with no Area), enabling them to make an attack. The creature being attacked is not the target of the spell.
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.
No, it isn't. Nothing in that statement says that a non-target can't take damage as the result of a spell.
If I cast Haste on a Fighter and the fighter then attacks an Orc with the extra action, who is the target?
In the case of True Strike the spell is cast on the caster (Self with no Area), enabling them to make an attack. The creature being attacked is not the target of the spell.
Haste's effect is not the attack the fighter makes, it is the ability it grants. True strike's effect is the attack (and again, as Tarodnet pointed out, the range has only to do with the range, not the target). It would be incomprehensible and indefensible to say that acid splash's target is "you" because that is the first word in the description. You are doing the same with true strike -- your argument is only based on the fact that the first sentence says "you" in it. Lots of spells tell you what you are going to do as part of the casting; most of those don't target you, they target the creatures affected by the spell. Just like the glossary defines target.
If you are actually interested in understanding the rule, take some time with it and re-read and use critical thinking skills. If you don't want to understand, that's fine, but don't imagine any arguments that ignore the glossary are going to convince anyone who doesn't already believe you.
If you are actually interested in understanding the rule, take some time with it and re-read and use critical thinking skills. If you don't want to understand, that's fine, but don't imagine any arguments that ignore the glossary are going to convince anyone who doesn't already believe you.
Comments like this are getting quite old I must say. It doesn't help your argument at all.
(and again, as Tarodnet pointed out, the range has only to do with the range, not the target).
This is wrong though. The two concepts are related. The range tells you where the spell effect can originate. If it's an AoE spell, that spell effect can then spread outwards from that point of origin. If it's not an AoE spell, then the spell is directly targeting whatever is located at this point of origin and the spell effect does not affect anything else since it's not spreading outwards from that location -- it's only affecting that location where it originates.
A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate
As a total random aside, I had thought that making pack of the blade a magic action spell attack for attacking with it would have solved so many stupid dip issues.
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.
No, it isn't. Nothing in that statement says that a non-target can't take damage as the result of a spell.
If I cast Haste on a Fighter and the fighter then attacks an Orc with the extra action, who is the target?
In the case of True Strike the spell is cast on the caster (Self with no Area), enabling them to make an attack. The creature being attacked is not the target of the spell.
Haste's effect is not the attack the fighter makes, it is the ability it grants.
And that is my point. The effect of True Strike is not the attack (not in the sense you mean). It is the ability it grants (the ability to attack with a different stat and do radiant damage).
. . .It would be incomprehensible and indefensible to say that acid splash's target is "you" because that is the first word in the description.
And I didn't say that. You are using a strawman argument. Acid Splash has a Range of 60 feet. It doesn't have a Range of Self and no Area.
You are doing the same with true strike -- your argument is only based on the fact that the first sentence says "you" in it.
No. My argument is additionally based on the fact that the range is Self, and there is no Area, something you seem steadfastly determined to ignore.
If you are actually interested in understanding the rule, take some time with it and re-read and use critical thinking skills. If you don't want to understand, that's fine, but don't imagine any arguments that ignore the glossary are going to convince anyone who doesn't already believe you.
Again, I am not ignoring the glossary. You are misrepresenting it. It does not say anyone taking damage as the result of a spell that was cast is the target of the spell. You even agree in the case of Haste. The Orc took damage due to the spell (the Fighter wouldn't get to make their attack without the spell), yet the Orc is not the target.
Since I cannot think of any other spells that have a Range of Self and no Area that Target someone other than the caster, my critical thinking skills tell me that, in this case, the caster is the target and that True Strike is functioning similarly to Haste (granting an ability to the Target that then lets them make a Weapon Attack).
A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate, and the spell’s description specifies which part of the effect is limited by the range.
A range usually takes one of the following forms:
Distance. The range is expressed in feet.
Touch. The spell’s effect originates on something the spellcaster must touch, as defined in the spell.
Self. The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them, as specified in the spell.
The effects of a spell are detailed after its duration entry. Those details present exactly what the spell does, which ignores mundane physical laws; any outcomes beyond those effects are under the DM’s purview. Whatever the effects, they typically deal with targets, saving throws, attack rolls, or all three, each of which is detailed below.
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. [...]
They may be different concepts, but they are related since a Target cannot be outside the Range of the spell.
With a Range of Self and no Area, how can the Target be anything but the caster?
A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate, and the spell’s description specifies which part of the effect is limited by the range.
A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate, and the spell’s description specifies which part of the effect is limited by the range.
Yes, it does make mention of targets. It simply does not explicitly use the word 'Target'.
Self. The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them, as specified in the spell.
Now, True Strike does not emanate. That would require an Area so that we can tell how far the effect can reach. Thus, critical thinking tells us that the section after 'or' does not apply. We remove that and we get:
Self. The spell is cast on the spellcaster
Now, the word Target may not be used, but that is pretty clearly a mention of the Target.
Try applying any of your logic to another example. Let's pick any of the paladin smites; I'll pick thunderous to start. Go for it.
Edit: actually, searing smite is a great example because it talks about what you do in the description. How does it fit into your understanding of range and target and the description of the spell? Can you make sense of it without amending your position?
They may be different concepts, but they are related since a Target cannot be outside the Range of the spell.
With a Range of Self and no Area, how can the Target be anything but the caster?
Trust me, because I've been down this road before with this community, but they really don't like it when you use the word "Target" with this connotation, particularly with respect to the 2024 rules. Even though it's perfectly reasonable.
It requires a lot of words, but the way that you have to explain it is like this:
The origin point (where the spell's effect originates) of the spell effect must be within range:
A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate
That spell effect must then actually interact with a creature in some way in order to affect it. If it does, then, in 2024 terms, that creature becomes a target of the spell effect.
When the spell is not an AoE spell and the spell has a range of self, the spell effect only exists at the spellcaster's location. Because this spell effect never comes into contact with another creature, that creature cannot be a target of the spell.
There was a similar thread a while back about the Booming Blade spell and it was the same situation. People really get confused by spells that have a range of self when it seems like the spell description is doing a bunch of stuff. They aren't grasping that these spells are being cast on the spellcaster, which means that the spellcaster is the target of the spell. They are getting some sort of a buff from the spell, which gives them some sort of ability to do something -- often non-magical -- to another creature (and often after the "instantaneous" nature of the spell effect has already expired).
Often times there is an ongoing non-magical consequence of a spell, even though the actual spell effect no longer exists. Suppose that we cast some sort of an instantaneous spell which creates a big crater in the ground. Well, after that spell is long gone there is still a crater in the ground. A while later, if a creature wanders along and falls into the crater . . . that creature is not a target of any spell (no ongoing spell effect even exists at this point), even though it has been affected by an ongoing consequence of the spell.
Anyway, to try to somehow bring this back to the original question -- it's just a mundane weapon attack. The spell affects the spellcaster and the spellcaster then makes a weapon attack.
A quick example for my above post is the Confusion spell:
Each creature in a 10-foot-radius Sphere centered on a point you choose within range must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw, or that target can’t take Bonus Actions or Reactions and must roll 1d10 at the start of each of its turns to determine its behavior for that turn, consulting the table below.
. . .
The target doesn’t move, and it takes the Attack action to make one melee attack against a random creature within reach. If none are within reach, the target takes no action.
. . .
At the end of each of its turns, an affected target repeats the save
Every place where the term "target" is used within this spell description refers to the actual confused creature, NOT to the creature that is attacked by the confused creature. The confused creature was within the sphere that was filled with the magical spell effect when the spell was cast, so this spell effect interacted with and negatively affected that creature. The spell effect never comes into contact with that other creature so that creature is not targeted by the spell. It might be the target of an attack, but it's not the target of the spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm really not.
True Strike does not emanate from the caster. For it to do that it would have to have a range of Self and then some sort of Area. That means that the spell is cast on the Spellcaster themselves, since that is the only other option. The spellcaster then 'receives the effect of [the] spell' (shown by the use of the word 'you') which causes them to make an attack (the effect of the spell).
You walked right past it. A target is a creature targeted by an attack roll. True strike asks you to make an attack roll. The target of true strike is the target of that attack roll.
No. A target is 'a 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.' You have to take the entire sentence into account since it specifies reasons why it may apply to a creature or object other than one targeted by an attack roll.
In this case the target is 'selected to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon'. In this case 'effect of the spell' is that the target makes an attack using their spellcasting stat instead of Strength or Dexterity and may elect to do Radiant damage. You can tell that because the True Strike says 'you', referring to the caster.
The creature or object being attacked is no more the target of the spell than a creature being attacked by a skeleton is the target of Animate Dead.
You also did not address the fact that the spell has no Area, a requirement for a Self range spell to affect something other than the caster.
Range and Targets are different concepts. They're even covered in different sections in the Chapter 7: Spells.
A creature who is the target of the effect of a spell may not be forced to make a save or subjected to an attack. There are plenty of examples where the targets of a spell are chosen.
But if the effect of a spell is that they take damage from a weapon attack, then the creature taking that damage is the target of that spell.
Nick does not work with True Strike unless you cast the cantrip as part of the Attack Action (e.g. thanks to Eldritch Knight's War Magic, College of Valor Bard's Extra Attack, or Bladesinging's Extra Attack).
Related threads:
Is that a rule somewhere? If it is then it is badly written since anyone attacked by a skeleton is 'subjected to an attack' even though they weren't the target of Raise Dead.
Yes, it's in the definition of target.
No. This is pretty straightforward. You just look at the wording in the spell description to determine such things. The attack is a weapon attack:
This is all 100% correct. This spell targets the spellcaster and causes the spellcaster to become "Guided by a flash of magical insight". The result of this spell effect adds a particular type of weapon attack to the spellcaster's action economy for this turn, which is used immediately. That's the extent of the spell effect. The effect of the spell does not interact with other creatures (no other creatures are even mentioned in the spell description) -- those other creatures (if any) are struck by a mundane weapon attack from a spellcaster that was just (instantaneously) buffed by a spell.
No, it isn't. Nothing in that statement says that a non-target can't take damage as the result of a spell.
If I cast Haste on a Fighter and the fighter then attacks an Orc with the extra action, who is the target?
In the case of True Strike the spell is cast on the caster (Self with no Area), enabling them to make an attack. The creature being attacked is not the target of the spell.
Haste's effect is not the attack the fighter makes, it is the ability it grants. True strike's effect is the attack (and again, as Tarodnet pointed out, the range has only to do with the range, not the target). It would be incomprehensible and indefensible to say that acid splash's target is "you" because that is the first word in the description. You are doing the same with true strike -- your argument is only based on the fact that the first sentence says "you" in it. Lots of spells tell you what you are going to do as part of the casting; most of those don't target you, they target the creatures affected by the spell. Just like the glossary defines target.
If you are actually interested in understanding the rule, take some time with it and re-read and use critical thinking skills. If you don't want to understand, that's fine, but don't imagine any arguments that ignore the glossary are going to convince anyone who doesn't already believe you.
Comments like this are getting quite old I must say. It doesn't help your argument at all.
This is wrong though. The two concepts are related. The range tells you where the spell effect can originate. If it's an AoE spell, that spell effect can then spread outwards from that point of origin. If it's not an AoE spell, then the spell is directly targeting whatever is located at this point of origin and the spell effect does not affect anything else since it's not spreading outwards from that location -- it's only affecting that location where it originates.
As a total random aside, I had thought that making pack of the blade a magic action spell attack for attacking with it would have solved so many stupid dip issues.
And that is my point. The effect of True Strike is not the attack (not in the sense you mean). It is the ability it grants (the ability to attack with a different stat and do radiant damage).
And I didn't say that. You are using a strawman argument. Acid Splash has a Range of 60 feet. It doesn't have a Range of Self and no Area.
No. My argument is additionally based on the fact that the range is Self, and there is no Area, something you seem steadfastly determined to ignore.
Again, I am not ignoring the glossary. You are misrepresenting it. It does not say anyone taking damage as the result of a spell that was cast is the target of the spell. You even agree in the case of Haste. The Orc took damage due to the spell (the Fighter wouldn't get to make their attack without the spell), yet the Orc is not the target.
Since I cannot think of any other spells that have a Range of Self and no Area that Target someone other than the caster, my critical thinking skills tell me that, in this case, the caster is the target and that True Strike is functioning similarly to Haste (granting an ability to the Target that then lets them make a Weapon Attack).
They may be different concepts, but they are related since a Target cannot be outside the Range of the spell.
With a Range of Self and no Area, how can the Target be anything but the caster?
Range makes no mention of targets.
Yes, it does make mention of targets. It simply does not explicitly use the word 'Target'.
Now, True Strike does not emanate. That would require an Area so that we can tell how far the effect can reach. Thus, critical thinking tells us that the section after 'or' does not apply. We remove that and we get:
Now, the word Target may not be used, but that is pretty clearly a mention of the Target.
Try applying any of your logic to another example. Let's pick any of the paladin smites; I'll pick thunderous to start. Go for it.
Edit: actually, searing smite is a great example because it talks about what you do in the description. How does it fit into your understanding of range and target and the description of the spell? Can you make sense of it without amending your position?
Trust me, because I've been down this road before with this community, but they really don't like it when you use the word "Target" with this connotation, particularly with respect to the 2024 rules. Even though it's perfectly reasonable.
It requires a lot of words, but the way that you have to explain it is like this:
The origin point (where the spell's effect originates) of the spell effect must be within range:
That spell effect must then actually interact with a creature in some way in order to affect it. If it does, then, in 2024 terms, that creature becomes a target of the spell effect.
When the spell is not an AoE spell and the spell has a range of self, the spell effect only exists at the spellcaster's location. Because this spell effect never comes into contact with another creature, that creature cannot be a target of the spell.
There was a similar thread a while back about the Booming Blade spell and it was the same situation. People really get confused by spells that have a range of self when it seems like the spell description is doing a bunch of stuff. They aren't grasping that these spells are being cast on the spellcaster, which means that the spellcaster is the target of the spell. They are getting some sort of a buff from the spell, which gives them some sort of ability to do something -- often non-magical -- to another creature (and often after the "instantaneous" nature of the spell effect has already expired).
Often times there is an ongoing non-magical consequence of a spell, even though the actual spell effect no longer exists. Suppose that we cast some sort of an instantaneous spell which creates a big crater in the ground. Well, after that spell is long gone there is still a crater in the ground. A while later, if a creature wanders along and falls into the crater . . . that creature is not a target of any spell (no ongoing spell effect even exists at this point), even though it has been affected by an ongoing consequence of the spell.
Anyway, to try to somehow bring this back to the original question -- it's just a mundane weapon attack. The spell affects the spellcaster and the spellcaster then makes a weapon attack.
A quick example for my above post is the Confusion spell:
Every place where the term "target" is used within this spell description refers to the actual confused creature, NOT to the creature that is attacked by the confused creature. The confused creature was within the sphere that was filled with the magical spell effect when the spell was cast, so this spell effect interacted with and negatively affected that creature. The spell effect never comes into contact with that other creature so that creature is not targeted by the spell. It might be the target of an attack, but it's not the target of the spell.