So there are spells with a Range of Self that do not use an Area. I stand corrected on that point as in the case of Thunderous Smite the creature being struck by the weapon is specifically referred to as the Target.
However, that still does not mean that the creature attacked by the weapon mustbe the Target of the spell. It simply means that they couldbe the target of the spell.
True Strike says, 'you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting'. It never declares, 'the Target takes Radiant damage' or anything like that. That does not sound to me like the Target of the spell is the creature. That sounds to me like the Target of the spell is the caster and the effect is that they then make a non-spell attack (since it is being made 'with the weapon).
I will now admit that I couldbe wrong since there are Self Range spells with no Area that Target others, but barring some definitive statement from the designers I still do not think that is their intent in this case.
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?
Thunderous Smite and Searing Smite are weird examples. I feel like they are taking a shortcut somewhere. The effect is really a touch range effect (touched via an attack) but to get around needing to perform a melee spell attack, they made it self range (modifying your damage). I feel like the wording should be that the target of your attack takes extra damage. Yes, it is still an external entity taking the effect of the spell (unless you were hitting yourself for some reason), but I feel like it would have contributed to a broader clarity.
I mean, there are 3 pages of spells with "range: self" before we even get to the emanations in the 2024 PHB on the spells database here. Most of them are spells that actually affect the caster, but more than a few affect other creatures instead. Some of those, like flame blade use "target" in the description to refer to the affected creature. Some like eyebite eventually use "target", but not for the initial description of the affected creature, only to refer back to subsequent uses of the effects, and some like gust of wind affect creatures other than the caster but never use the word "target" at all.
So pick any type of example you like, PHB(2024) has them.
I mean, there are 3 pages of spells with "range: self" before we even get to the emanations in the 2024 PHB on the spells database here. Most of them are spells that actually affect the caster, but more than a few affect other creatures instead. Some of those, like flame blade use "target" in the description to refer to the affected creature. Some like eyebite eventually use "target", but not for the initial description of the affected creature, only to refer back to subsequent uses of the effects, and some like gust of wind affect creatures other than the caster but never use the word "target" at all.
So pick any type of example you like, PHB(2024) has them.
Flame Blade and Eyebite give you a Magic action for the duration and "target" is in the context of that action. Gust of Wind gives you gas (via beans*) severe enough to create an effect that starts at you and proceeds in a line of your choice. Creatures can be affected by you gaseous stream, but aren't the target of the spell.
*the material component is a legume seed and while beans aren't the only legume, given the spell effect and the reputation of beans, I think the implication is clear.
Spells like Gust of Wind and Burning Hands are AoE spells whose point of origin begins at the spellcaster so under 2024 rules the spells with those mechanics can easily "target" other creatures who are located within that AoE.
I don't have access to the latest wording for Thunderous Smite unfortunately but if it is a spell that explicitly makes a spell attack against another creature, but the spell has a Range of self then that will probably have to be fixed via errata. I'll take the others' word for it that something about that spell probably needs to be tweaked to bring it in line with how other spells are written.
Based on the 2024 usage of the term "target", I would be on board with saying that Flame Blade targets the affected creatures. Flame Blade speaks about making a "melee spell attack".
Eyebite is less clear to me. While the affected creature is clearly a "target" of something, is it being targeted by the spell effect? Or does the spellcaster (after being buffed by the spell) just have a special ability to cause some other type of "effect" which targets the affected creature?
This reminds me of the Detect Thoughts spell. Although the spell description uses the word "target", is the affected creature actually being targeted by the spell effect? Or is that creature being targeted by my special ability that I have after being buffed by the spell? For Range/self spells like this I think of it as the latter. Otherwise, the spell should have an actual range so that the spell effect can originate there instead.
Spells like Gust of Wind and Burning Hands are AoE spells whose point of origin begins at the spellcaster so under 2024 rules the spells with those mechanics can easily "target" other creatures who are located within that AoE.
I don't have access to the latest wording for Thunderous Smite unfortunately but if it is a spell that explicitly makes a spell attack against another creature, but the spell has a Range of self then that will probably have to be fixed via errata. I'll take the others' word for it that something about that spell probably needs to be tweaked to bring it in line with how other spells are written.
Based on the 2024 usage of the term "target", I would be on board with saying that Flame Blade targets the affected creatures. Flame Blade speaks about making a "melee spell attack".
Eyebite is less clear to me. While the affected creature is clearly a "target" of something, is it being targeted by the spell effect? Or does the spellcaster (after being buffed by the spell) just have a special ability to cause some other type of "effect" which targets the affected creature?
This reminds me of the Detect Thoughts spell. Although the spell description uses the word "target", is the affected creature actually being targeted by the spell effect? Or is that creature being targeted by my special ability that I have after being buffed by the spell? For Range/self spells like this I think of it as the latter. Otherwise, the spell should have an actual range so that the spell effect can originate there instead.
Searing Smite is similarly worded and is available in the Free Rules online. Thunderous Smite has an additional secondary effect whereas Searing Smite has a secondary ongoing effect. It seems the logic might be that the spells are affecting you and modifying the damage you deal.
A good example of the weirdness is actually Shillelagh. This is a spell changes a club or quarterstaff (but only one end) and should be a Touch spell, not Self.
Detect Thoughts again gives the caster new Magic actions and one of them has a target and range of 30 feet.
Perhaps there is a design choice whereby any spell which essentially enchants something that you are currently wielding or holding (like in Shillelagh) is a "self" spell instead of a "touch" spell to indicate that the object is at the spellcaster's location instead of in an adjacent location (in terms of grid-based play at least). I'd have to review other spells to see if this is a consistent design or not -- but it could explain what is actually happening with the Smite spells -- perhaps the weapon is temporarily enchanted (targeted) to cause this extra damage. I think that if the Smite spells were "touch" range then it would make more sense for the affected creature to be considered to be targeted by the spell -- but as it currently stands, I don't really see it that way.
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. [...]
[...] I don't have access to the latest wording for Thunderous Smite unfortunately but if it is a spell that explicitly makes a spell attack against another creature, but the spell has a Range of self then that will probably have to be fixed via errata. I'll take the others' word for it that something about that spell probably needs to be tweaked to bring it in line with how other spells are written. [...]
Thunderous Smite doesn't need errata if we understand how Range and Target work.
Range: Self
Effects of the spell: Your strike rings with thunder that is audible within 300 feet of you, and the target takes an extra 2d6 Thunder damage from the attack. Additionally, if the target is a creature, it must succeed on a Strength saving throw or be pushed 10 feet away from you and have the Prone condition.
So there are spells with a Range of Self that do not use an Area. I stand corrected on that point as in the case of Thunderous Smite the creature being struck by the weapon is specifically referred to as the Target.
However, that still does not mean that the creature attacked by the weapon mustbe the Target of the spell. It simply means that they couldbe the target of the spell.
True Strike says, 'you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting'. It never declares, 'the Target takes Radiant damage' or anything like that. That does not sound to me like the Target of the spell is the creature. That sounds to me like the Target of the spell is the caster and the effect is that they then make a non-spell attack (since it is being made 'with the weapon).
I will now admit that I couldbe wrong since there are Self Range spells with no Area that Target others, but barring some definitive statement from the designers I still do not think that is their intent in this case.
If it helps, this post from post from @kenclary provides a good explanation about how Range and Target should be understood:
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 [...]
I mean, there are 3 pages of spells with "range: self" before we even get to the emanations in the 2024 PHB on the spells database here. Most of them are spells that actually affect the caster, but more than a few affect other creatures instead. Some of those, like flame blade use "target" in the description to refer to the affected creature. Some like eyebite eventually use "target", but not for the initial description of the affected creature, only to refer back to subsequent uses of the effects, and some like gust of wind affect creatures other than the caster but never use the word "target" at all.
So pick any type of example you like, PHB(2024) has them.
Flame Blade and Eyebite give you a Magic action for the duration and "target" is in the context of that action. Gust of Wind gives you gas (via beans*) severe enough to create an effect that starts at you and proceeds in a line of your choice. Creatures can be affected by you gaseous stream, but aren't the target of the spell.
*the material component is a legume seed and while beans aren't the only legume, given the spell effect and the reputation of beans, I think the implication is clear.
So, it comes down to two sets of "range: self" spells? Ones that take a shortcut and ones that aren't really talking about the target of the effect when they use the word "target" in the description of the effect? That's easier than just having a consistent view using the glossary definition of target? So which are scrying or speak with plants? I think vampiric touch is another apt example considering true strike and the smites you have a problem with. Again, there are 3 pages of examples, all of which are different.
It's much easier to just separate range from target and treat the target of the spell as the thing the description says the spell affects.
I mean, there are 3 pages of spells with "range: self" before we even get to the emanations in the 2024 PHB on the spells database here. Most of them are spells that actually affect the caster, but more than a few affect other creatures instead. Some of those, like flame blade use "target" in the description to refer to the affected creature. Some like eyebite eventually use "target", but not for the initial description of the affected creature, only to refer back to subsequent uses of the effects, and some like gust of wind affect creatures other than the caster but never use the word "target" at all.
So pick any type of example you like, PHB(2024) has them.
Flame Blade and Eyebite give you a Magic action for the duration and "target" is in the context of that action. Gust of Wind gives you gas (via beans*) severe enough to create an effect that starts at you and proceeds in a line of your choice. Creatures can be affected by you gaseous stream, but aren't the target of the spell.
*the material component is a legume seed and while beans aren't the only legume, given the spell effect and the reputation of beans, I think the implication is clear.
So, it comes down to two sets of "range: self" spells? Ones that take a shortcut and ones that aren't really talking about the target of the effect when they use the word "target" in the description of the effect? That's easier than just having a consistent view using the glossary definition of target? So which are scrying or speak with plants? I think vampiric touch is another apt example considering true strike and the smites you have a problem with. Again, there are 3 pages of examples, all of which are different.
It's much easier to just separate range from target and treat the target of the spell as the thing the description says the spell affects.
Oof. I would say the "shortcut" ones fall into what TarodNet quoted above. Maybe the logic is that the extra damage is an emanation from the caster? I don't like that trend, but it is what it is. I prefer a better definition of what is affected by the spell and how.
Scrying doesn't seem like it should be Range Self unless the explanation is that you are changing the caster's senses. There is no other manner in which it is targeting the caster or emanating from the caster. It's creating an orb at a target creature's location or at a target location (in which case there's no save).
Speak with Plants is creating an emanation that originates with the caster. As an aside, does the emanation move with you or is it set for the 10 minutes?
Vampiric Touch appears to be giving you a Magic action for an attack and get to make an attack against the target of that action when you cast it. By Jeremy Crawford's logic in the video, I don't know if it can be used with War Caster. When you cast it, you do only target one creature with the initial attack and it has a casting time of one action. It could be argued that it fits the War Caster criteria. However, I believe it actually targets the caster and you just get a free use of your new Magic action when you cast it. This is a good scenario for what I mean by wanting a better definition of the target. This spell, in my opinion should say:
The touch of your shadow-wreathed hand can siphon life force from others to heal your wounds. Until the spell ends, as a Magic action you can a melee spell attack against one creature within reach. On a hit, the target takes 3d6 Necrotic damage, and you regain Hit Points equal to half the amount of Necrotic damage dealt. When you cast this spell, make an attack against a valid target with this spell attack.
With a higher level spell slot: ...
The wording probably needs to be cleaned up, but I think this is the same spell with clearer and more concise wording. If you agree, I think we then see that the target of Vampiric Touch (in the original wording) is actually the caster with target of the attack being a separate matter.
Oh cool, another thread about the One True Meaning of Target. And just in time for Targetmas!
The rules use the word "target" to mean different things in different contexts. A spell can target the caster and give them an effect that lets them target other creatures with attacks. This is not a contradiction. As was already pointed out, vampiric touch and flame blade might be the best examples of that among the Range: Self spells in the 2024 rules
The best argument against true strike counting as a spell attack is simply that it doesn't specify that you are making a melee spell attack, the way Vampiric Touch or Flame Blade do
I'm not sure why the smites were dragged into it though. They are very clearly not spells attacks for the purposes of calculating attack bonuses, because the effects don't even get resolved until after your weapon attack hits
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)
Unfortunately, there is way too much incorrect information given in the recent posts to be able to quote them all and respond to them individually. Generally speaking, I'll just say that you all are making these concepts unnecessarily complicated.
The range of a spell specifies where the spell effect can originate. That concept should be incredibly straightforward.
Next, the spell effect only exists at the location where it originated unless the spell description says otherwise. In general, there are two types of spells -- direct targeting spells and Area of Effect spells . . .
If the spell description indicates that a creature is directly targeted, then the spell effect only exists at that creature's location. It originates there and it stays there. For example, a spell such as Magic Missile allows you to choose a creature within 120 feet of you and you can cause the spell effect from this spell to originate there. When you do, the spell effect erupts into existence at that creature's location, and nowhere else. The surrounding area is unaffected. Nearby creatures are unaffected. And so on. The spell effect only exists at the target creature's location. The spell effect then interacts with the creature (since they share the same space) in a negative way -- causing damage to the creature as defined by the spell description.
If the spell description instead indicates an AoE, then the spell effect fills up that area. This spell effect then interacts with any creature who happens to be located anywhere within this area at that moment. In 2024 terminology, this spell effect is "targeting" that creature.
The point is . . . in order for a creature to be considered to be a "target" of a spell, that spell effect that is created by the spell must actually interact with that creature. Otherwise, that creature is being targeted by something else, not by the spell.
In the case of a spell with a Range of "self" and no AoE, the spell effect is confined to the spellcaster's location. By definition, it cannot interact with other creatures -- the spell effect simply is not located over there. Now, if the Range of "self" is simply designating the point of origin for an AoE, then that's a different story. The spell effect of an AoE actually fills up the entire defined area. So, it might originate at the spellcaster's location but still affect / interact with other creatures. But if there is no AoE, and the spell description does not possess some incredibly specific explicit language about how the spell effect spreads to other locations (I cannot even think of any examples of that), then this is not possible.
Just because a creature is a target of an attack does not mean that it's the target of a spell. Remember, the Glossary definition of "target" is broad -- it encompasses the possibility of being "targeted" by mundane weapon attacks as well as being "targeted" by an effect or a spell effect or by some other phenomenon. You cannot point to that rule and say "See? That rule means that the spell is targeting the creature!" No. The rule just shows that the creature is being targeted by something -- but not necessarily by the spell.
So, it comes down to two sets of "range: self" spells? Ones that take a shortcut and ones that aren't really talking about the target of the effect when they use the word "target" in the description of the effect?
Really the only two types of "range: self" spells are the ones that are AoE spells and the ones that are not. How the term "target" is used within a spell description must always be read in context. The term doesn't necessarily have to be talking about the target of the spell or the spell effect -- it might just be talking about the target of an attack, depending on what that particular spell description is trying to describe.
It's much easier to just separate range from target and treat the target of the spell as the thing the description says the spell affects.
This might be easier, but it not always accurate. We need to read the entire spell description, including the information given for the range of the spell, to be able to understand the mechanics of how the spell works.
There is certainly a reading that anything that the description mentions that fits the glossary definition is a target of the spell, which means spells could have different targets. I think that is what AntonSirius suggests, and I think it might be a decent answer. Nonetheless, that makes the creatures attacked by the effect targets too.
I still maintain any reading that makes mincemeat out of the glossary is a bad one. Especially when a fully consistent reading of the rules is staring you in the face that doesn't require pages of explanation along with a hundred exceptions and a couple of dozen calls for errata.
Spell range and targets of them are different things, range indicate where the spell originate and targets who's affected by the spell’s magic is part of it's effect.
Some spell may thus be cast on the spellcaster while not necessarily be a target of it. A spell’s description is where it says whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or something else, not the Range.
The Rule Glossary further clarify 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.
Here you can find Sage Advice - Targeting Revisited Dragontalk podcast on this subject. Many spells have been published over the years in various source and it's possible we find odd one still, but for the most part, spells are clear enought where they originate and who they target with their effect.
. . .I'm not sure why the smites were dragged into it though. . .
Smites were dragged into it because they are Self range spells without an Area that clearly Target someone other than the caster. I had taken the position that Self range spells couldn't Target someone other than the caster without an Area and the Smites refuted that.
. . . but for the most part, spells are clear enought where they originate and who they target with their effect.
Sadly, True Strike is one of those cases where it is unclear who is Targeted by the spell itself. It is equally possible to view it as the creature being attacked, the caster, or the weapon being used (I never proposed the weapon in my initial arguments because to me that should have meant a range of Touch, but Shillelagh apparently doesn't do that)
Sadly, True Strike is one of those cases where it is unclear who is Targeted by the spell itself. It is equally possible to view it as the creature being attacked, the caster, or the weapon being used (I never proposed the weapon in my initial arguments because to me that should have meant a range of Touch, but Shillelagh apparently doesn't do that)
A spell can originate from you and not necessarily have target as is the case of many divination spells you cast.
As written, True Strike doesn't require the caster to pick one or more targets, it causes the caster to make an attack. That attack will have a target, but it's not generated directly by the spell via an attack roll or a saving throw, nor it is directly selected to receive the effects of a spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So there are spells with a Range of Self that do not use an Area. I stand corrected on that point as in the case of Thunderous Smite the creature being struck by the weapon is specifically referred to as the Target.
However, that still does not mean that the creature attacked by the weapon must be the Target of the spell. It simply means that they could be the target of the spell.
True Strike says, 'you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting'. It never declares, 'the Target takes Radiant damage' or anything like that. That does not sound to me like the Target of the spell is the creature. That sounds to me like the Target of the spell is the caster and the effect is that they then make a non-spell attack (since it is being made 'with the weapon).
I will now admit that I could be wrong since there are Self Range spells with no Area that Target others, but barring some definitive statement from the designers I still do not think that is their intent in this case.
Thunderous Smite and Searing Smite are weird examples. I feel like they are taking a shortcut somewhere. The effect is really a touch range effect (touched via an attack) but to get around needing to perform a melee spell attack, they made it self range (modifying your damage). I feel like the wording should be that the target of your attack takes extra damage. Yes, it is still an external entity taking the effect of the spell (unless you were hitting yourself for some reason), but I feel like it would have contributed to a broader clarity.
How to add Tooltips.
I mean, there are 3 pages of spells with "range: self" before we even get to the emanations in the 2024 PHB on the spells database here. Most of them are spells that actually affect the caster, but more than a few affect other creatures instead. Some of those, like flame blade use "target" in the description to refer to the affected creature. Some like eyebite eventually use "target", but not for the initial description of the affected creature, only to refer back to subsequent uses of the effects, and some like gust of wind affect creatures other than the caster but never use the word "target" at all.
So pick any type of example you like, PHB(2024) has them.
Flame Blade and Eyebite give you a Magic action for the duration and "target" is in the context of that action. Gust of Wind gives you gas (via beans*) severe enough to create an effect that starts at you and proceeds in a line of your choice. Creatures can be affected by you gaseous stream, but aren't the target of the spell.
*the material component is a legume seed and while beans aren't the only legume, given the spell effect and the reputation of beans, I think the implication is clear.
How to add Tooltips.
Spells like Gust of Wind and Burning Hands are AoE spells whose point of origin begins at the spellcaster so under 2024 rules the spells with those mechanics can easily "target" other creatures who are located within that AoE.
I don't have access to the latest wording for Thunderous Smite unfortunately but if it is a spell that explicitly makes a spell attack against another creature, but the spell has a Range of self then that will probably have to be fixed via errata. I'll take the others' word for it that something about that spell probably needs to be tweaked to bring it in line with how other spells are written.
Based on the 2024 usage of the term "target", I would be on board with saying that Flame Blade targets the affected creatures. Flame Blade speaks about making a "melee spell attack".
Eyebite is less clear to me. While the affected creature is clearly a "target" of something, is it being targeted by the spell effect? Or does the spellcaster (after being buffed by the spell) just have a special ability to cause some other type of "effect" which targets the affected creature?
This reminds me of the Detect Thoughts spell. Although the spell description uses the word "target", is the affected creature actually being targeted by the spell effect? Or is that creature being targeted by my special ability that I have after being buffed by the spell? For Range/self spells like this I think of it as the latter. Otherwise, the spell should have an actual range so that the spell effect can originate there instead.
Searing Smite is similarly worded and is available in the Free Rules online. Thunderous Smite has an additional secondary effect whereas Searing Smite has a secondary ongoing effect. It seems the logic might be that the spells are affecting you and modifying the damage you deal.
A good example of the weirdness is actually Shillelagh. This is a spell changes a club or quarterstaff (but only one end) and should be a Touch spell, not Self.
Detect Thoughts again gives the caster new Magic actions and one of them has a target and range of 30 feet.
How to add Tooltips.
Perhaps there is a design choice whereby any spell which essentially enchants something that you are currently wielding or holding (like in Shillelagh) is a "self" spell instead of a "touch" spell to indicate that the object is at the spellcaster's location instead of in an adjacent location (in terms of grid-based play at least). I'd have to review other spells to see if this is a consistent design or not -- but it could explain what is actually happening with the Smite spells -- perhaps the weapon is temporarily enchanted (targeted) to cause this extra damage. I think that if the Smite spells were "touch" range then it would make more sense for the affected creature to be considered to be targeted by the spell -- but as it currently stands, I don't really see it that way.
I didn't say the opposite either.
The target is explained in the effect of a spell:
Thunderous Smite doesn't need errata if we understand how Range and Target work.
If it helps, this post from post from @kenclary provides a good explanation about how Range and Target should be understood:
(*) Thread: 2024 Evoker Wizard, Potent Cantrip and Weapon Cantrips
Additionally, the Booming Blade discussion has been mentioned, so this post might also be useful for you esampson (it’s my reply in the thread 2024 Evoker Wizard, Potent Cantrip and Weapon Cantrips):
So, it comes down to two sets of "range: self" spells? Ones that take a shortcut and ones that aren't really talking about the target of the effect when they use the word "target" in the description of the effect? That's easier than just having a consistent view using the glossary definition of target? So which are scrying or speak with plants? I think vampiric touch is another apt example considering true strike and the smites you have a problem with. Again, there are 3 pages of examples, all of which are different.
It's much easier to just separate range from target and treat the target of the spell as the thing the description says the spell affects.
Oof. I would say the "shortcut" ones fall into what TarodNet quoted above. Maybe the logic is that the extra damage is an emanation from the caster? I don't like that trend, but it is what it is. I prefer a better definition of what is affected by the spell and how.
Scrying doesn't seem like it should be Range Self unless the explanation is that you are changing the caster's senses. There is no other manner in which it is targeting the caster or emanating from the caster. It's creating an orb at a target creature's location or at a target location (in which case there's no save).
Speak with Plants is creating an emanation that originates with the caster. As an aside, does the emanation move with you or is it set for the 10 minutes?
Vampiric Touch appears to be giving you a Magic action for an attack and get to make an attack against the target of that action when you cast it. By Jeremy Crawford's logic in the video, I don't know if it can be used with War Caster. When you cast it, you do only target one creature with the initial attack and it has a casting time of one action. It could be argued that it fits the War Caster criteria. However, I believe it actually targets the caster and you just get a free use of your new Magic action when you cast it. This is a good scenario for what I mean by wanting a better definition of the target. This spell, in my opinion should say:
The wording probably needs to be cleaned up, but I think this is the same spell with clearer and more concise wording. If you agree, I think we then see that the target of Vampiric Touch (in the original wording) is actually the caster with target of the attack being a separate matter.
How to add Tooltips.
Oh cool, another thread about the One True Meaning of Target. And just in time for Targetmas!
The rules use the word "target" to mean different things in different contexts. A spell can target the caster and give them an effect that lets them target other creatures with attacks. This is not a contradiction. As was already pointed out, vampiric touch and flame blade might be the best examples of that among the Range: Self spells in the 2024 rules
The best argument against true strike counting as a spell attack is simply that it doesn't specify that you are making a melee spell attack, the way Vampiric Touch or Flame Blade do
I'm not sure why the smites were dragged into it though. They are very clearly not spells attacks for the purposes of calculating attack bonuses, because the effects don't even get resolved until after your weapon attack hits
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)
Unfortunately, there is way too much incorrect information given in the recent posts to be able to quote them all and respond to them individually. Generally speaking, I'll just say that you all are making these concepts unnecessarily complicated.
The range of a spell specifies where the spell effect can originate. That concept should be incredibly straightforward.
Next, the spell effect only exists at the location where it originated unless the spell description says otherwise. In general, there are two types of spells -- direct targeting spells and Area of Effect spells . . .
If the spell description indicates that a creature is directly targeted, then the spell effect only exists at that creature's location. It originates there and it stays there. For example, a spell such as Magic Missile allows you to choose a creature within 120 feet of you and you can cause the spell effect from this spell to originate there. When you do, the spell effect erupts into existence at that creature's location, and nowhere else. The surrounding area is unaffected. Nearby creatures are unaffected. And so on. The spell effect only exists at the target creature's location. The spell effect then interacts with the creature (since they share the same space) in a negative way -- causing damage to the creature as defined by the spell description.
If the spell description instead indicates an AoE, then the spell effect fills up that area. This spell effect then interacts with any creature who happens to be located anywhere within this area at that moment. In 2024 terminology, this spell effect is "targeting" that creature.
The point is . . . in order for a creature to be considered to be a "target" of a spell, that spell effect that is created by the spell must actually interact with that creature. Otherwise, that creature is being targeted by something else, not by the spell.
In the case of a spell with a Range of "self" and no AoE, the spell effect is confined to the spellcaster's location. By definition, it cannot interact with other creatures -- the spell effect simply is not located over there. Now, if the Range of "self" is simply designating the point of origin for an AoE, then that's a different story. The spell effect of an AoE actually fills up the entire defined area. So, it might originate at the spellcaster's location but still affect / interact with other creatures. But if there is no AoE, and the spell description does not possess some incredibly specific explicit language about how the spell effect spreads to other locations (I cannot even think of any examples of that), then this is not possible.
Just because a creature is a target of an attack does not mean that it's the target of a spell. Remember, the Glossary definition of "target" is broad -- it encompasses the possibility of being "targeted" by mundane weapon attacks as well as being "targeted" by an effect or a spell effect or by some other phenomenon. You cannot point to that rule and say "See? That rule means that the spell is targeting the creature!" No. The rule just shows that the creature is being targeted by something -- but not necessarily by the spell.
Really the only two types of "range: self" spells are the ones that are AoE spells and the ones that are not. How the term "target" is used within a spell description must always be read in context. The term doesn't necessarily have to be talking about the target of the spell or the spell effect -- it might just be talking about the target of an attack, depending on what that particular spell description is trying to describe.
This might be easier, but it not always accurate. We need to read the entire spell description, including the information given for the range of the spell, to be able to understand the mechanics of how the spell works.
There is certainly a reading that anything that the description mentions that fits the glossary definition is a target of the spell, which means spells could have different targets. I think that is what AntonSirius suggests, and I think it might be a decent answer. Nonetheless, that makes the creatures attacked by the effect targets too.
I still maintain any reading that makes mincemeat out of the glossary is a bad one. Especially when a fully consistent reading of the rules is staring you in the face that doesn't require pages of explanation along with a hundred exceptions and a couple of dozen calls for errata.
Spell range and targets of them are different things, range indicate where the spell originate and targets who's affected by the spell’s magic is part of it's effect.
Some spell may thus be cast on the spellcaster while not necessarily be a target of it. A spell’s description is where it says whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or something else, not the Range.
The Rule Glossary further clarify 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.
Here you can find Sage Advice - Targeting Revisited Dragontalk podcast on this subject. Many spells have been published over the years in various source and it's possible we find odd one still, but for the most part, spells are clear enought where they originate and who they target with their effect.
Smites were dragged into it because they are Self range spells without an Area that clearly Target someone other than the caster. I had taken the position that Self range spells couldn't Target someone other than the caster without an Area and the Smites refuted that.
Sadly, True Strike is one of those cases where it is unclear who is Targeted by the spell itself. It is equally possible to view it as the creature being attacked, the caster, or the weapon being used (I never proposed the weapon in my initial arguments because to me that should have meant a range of Touch, but Shillelagh apparently doesn't do that)
A spell can originate from you and not necessarily have target as is the case of many divination spells you cast.
As written, True Strike doesn't require the caster to pick one or more targets, it causes the caster to make an attack. That attack will have a target, but it's not generated directly by the spell via an attack roll or a saving throw, nor it is directly selected to receive the effects of a spell.