If True Strike has any target it's the caster judging by how they address it.
Self. The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them, as specified in the spell.
Invalid Targets. If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by it, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended.
. . .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.
I changed my mind that a Self range with no Area automatically makes the caster the target. Clearly it is possible for something else to be the target in such a case.
However, the fact that it is possible is not the same as something else must be the target. I still believe from the wording of the spell that the caster is intended to be the Target and their attack is similar to the extra attack a person operating under Haste gets to make or that a skeleton under the effect of Animate Dead makes and that the roll is not a 'spellcasting roll' and wouldn't benefit from a magic item that adds +1 to your spellcasting attacks.
However, I can understand how other people might interpret it differently.
Am I absolutely sure my interpretation is right? No, of course not. The wording is unclear, but until there is designer clarification I'm going to rule for any game where I DM that that is how the spell operates. Will I scream and cry if I'm playing and a different DM rules differently? Nope, nor will I lose any sleep over the fact that other people are interpreting it differently.
I think "you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting" makes it pretty clear the attack is part of the spell, making the attack's target the spell's target.
Also, it's not clear to me what difference that (or the OP's question) really makes.
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.
This isn't how I interpret what he is saying in post #57. Fwiw, I agree with everything in that post -- I took it to mean that you need to read the spell description on a case-by-case basis to determine what the word "target" means for that description -- it might be referring to a spell target or it might be referring to the target of something else, such as an attack, depending on what it is actually saying. The word means different things in different contexts.
I still maintain any reading that makes mincemeat out of the glossary is a bad one.
If you are referring to the section of the Glossary which defines what the word "target" means -- again, you have to realize that that is a definition of a target in general, not necessarily specifically a target of a spell. That definition is all encompassing and includes creatures that are the target of a mundane longbow attack, for example. To determine what is actually targeting the creature you need to look at the context of how the word is being used.
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.
While it's true that the range and the target of a spell are two different concepts, they are related to each other in the sense that they depend on each other and work together to define what a spell is capable of doing.
For example, no matter how hard I try, I cannot cause the spell effect from my Magic Missile spell to target a creature that is standing 5000 feet away. This spell effect is restricted to originating and existing at a location that is not even close to the location of that creature. Since the spell effect cannot be located in a place that can interact with that creature, it cannot target that creature.
. . .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.
This is not true. The smite spells do not clearly target a creature other than the caster. They are carefully worded. They are either targeting the spellcaster and providing a buff to that spellcaster which is immediately applied to an attack, or they could be interpreted as targeting the weapon that the spellcaster is wielding that is being used in that attack, which is located within the range of self.
. . . 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)
I don't agree that this is particularly unclear -- it works the way that you originally claimed. The wording of the spell, along with the Range parameter of the spell confirms this.
As for targeting the weapon -- the current design seems to be that if the spellcaster is wielding that weapon then it is within the range of self -- if that weapon is sitting on a shelf or on the ground or something then you'd be talking about a range of touch. In terms of grid-based play, touch range includes the squares that are adjacent to the spellcaster and the self range does not.
A spell can originate from you and not necessarily have target as is the case of many divination spells you cast.
Those spells do target the spellcaster though. They cause the spellcaster to gain special divination powers. The actual spell effect exists at the spellcaster's location, so only the spellcaster is affected by the spell effect. If it didn't work that way, then the designers would not have designated a range of self for those spells.
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.
Yes, I do agree with this. The spell is carefully worded in this way for exactly this reason.
If True Strike has any target it's the caster judging by how they address it.
Self. The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them, as specified in the spell.
Invalid Targets. If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by it, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended.
I changed my mind that a Self range with no Area automatically makes the caster the target. Clearly it is possible for something else to be the target in such a case.
No, your original thoughts on this were correct -- there is no need to change your mind on this.
If the spell is cast that is restricted such that the spell effect must originate within a range of self and that spell effect does not create an Area of Effect and otherwise is not described as moving its location in some way, then there is no mechanism for that spell effect to interact with anything that is outside of the location of self. This location might include the spellcaster himself, or an object at the spellcaster's location or a point in space at the location that is shared by the spellcaster . . . but if another creature is located at some other location, the spell effect simply cannot target that creature since the spell effect is not located there.
I think "you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting" makes it pretty clear the attack is part of the spell, making the attack's target the spell's target.
Also, it's not clear to me what difference that (or the OP's question) really makes.
That wording doesn't lead to that conclusion. "you make one attack with the weapon" means that you make an attack with the weapon. That's pretty much the opposite of targeting a creature with a spell.
Keep in mind also that the True Strike spell never actually mentions any creatures. So how can these hypothetical creatures be the target of the spell?
I think "you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting" makes it pretty clear the attack is part of the spell, making the attack's target the spell's target.
Also, it's not clear to me what difference that (or the OP's question) really makes.
That wording doesn't lead to that conclusion. "you make one attack with the weapon" means that you make an attack with the weapon. That's pretty much the opposite of targeting a creature with a spell.
Keep in mind also that the True Strike spell never actually mentions any creatures. So how can these hypothetical creatures be the target of the spell?
The weapon is "used in the spell's casting," specifically to make an attack. And the target is "the creature or object targeted by an attack roll" per the definition that you keep trying to discount. This is very basic and obvious.
I changed my mind that a Self range with no Area automatically makes the caster the target. Clearly it is possible for something else to be the target in such a case.
I don't think you were wrong that a Self spell with no listed Range automatically makes the caster the target
The spell may just also target other things too
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)
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.
Thanks. I hate it. Green Flame Blade only working with War Caster if you choose not to make it jump to another person is nonsense. Can I use Gust of Wind, Burning Hands, Lightning Bolt, and whatnot as long as the creature that triggered the opportunity attack is the only one affected? Can I use Vampiric Touch and use it to make attacks against other creatures in later turns or do I have to end the spell? Jeremy Crawford's ruling, official or not sets a bad precedence. I don't see it the Sage Advice Compendium so I don't think it's official.
Counter to Jeremy Crawford, I think that RAW, Green Flame Blade is not usable with War Caster at any time. However, let's limit the tangents in one thread.
I don't think you were wrong that a Self spell with no listed Range automatically makes the caster the target
The spell may just also target other things too
I'm curious if people in this thread can explain how exactly a spell effect which exists only within a range of self can target a creature that is located elsewhere?
For example, if I own a gun in real life and I want to use it to shoot a creature, the bullet from the gun must actually be capable of coming into contact with the creature in order for me to target that creature. If the bullet does not physically contact the creature, then that creature is not affected in any way by my gun. Just because the instruction manual for the gun says something like that I can target whoever I want . . . that doesn't mean that I can target a creature on the other side of the planet when I pull the trigger. The gun has a certain range. If the bullet didn't come into contact with that creature, then that creature was not successfully targeted.
I changed my mind that a Self range with no Area automatically makes the caster the target. Clearly it is possible for something else to be the target in such a case.
However, the fact that it is possible is not the same as something else must be the target. I still believe from the wording of the spell that the caster is intended to be the Target and their attack is similar to the extra attack a person operating under Haste gets to make or that a skeleton under the effect of Animate Dead makes and that the roll is not a 'spellcasting roll' and wouldn't benefit from a magic item that adds +1 to your spellcasting attacks.
Yeah, one important thing to remember is that in the 2024 PHB, spells no longer use the "Range: Self (X radius, line, etc.)" notation used in the 2014 PHB. They've been updated to just "Range: Self".
So, you can't tell what the spell targets without reading the Effect of a spell.
[...] Am I absolutely sure my interpretation is right? No, of course not. The wording is unclear, but until there is designer clarification I'm going to rule for any game where I DM that that is how the spell operates. Will I scream and cry if I'm playing and a different DM rules differently? Nope, nor will I lose any sleep over the fact that other people are interpreting it differently.
Yeah, one important thing to remember is that in the 2024 PHB, spells no longer use the "Range: Self (X radius, line, etc.)" notation used in the 2014 PHB. They've been updated to just "Range: Self".
Yeah while D&D Beyond still list Range/Area together, the spells in print actually don't anymore so spell such as Thunderwave has a Range Self, and not Range Self (15 ft cube) for example.
I have a Rhythm-Maker's Drum, +3 in my left hand while I use my longsword to cast True Strike. Do I get +3 to the attack roll?
No since True Strike doesn't specifically let you make a spell attack per se.
But many DM probably would rule otherwise.
This sort of question came up earlier in this thread. Then, it was brought up (I think by Plaguescarred) that most references to "weapon attacks" and "spell attacks" in the PHB are gone from class features, even though they are now glossary defined terms. On the other hand, It sure looks like the rules around magic items still differentiate between them. Maybe they're glossary defined for things like magic items.
This is confusing, and I would like clarification on it. I would probably say that per the glossary, true strike has an attack that qualifies as both a weapon attack and a spell attack -- it is made with a weapon and it is made as part of the effect of a spell. But I would highly doubt that the +3 of your focus and the +3 of your magic longsword should both apply or even that they're intended to apply.
I have a Rhythm-Maker's Drum, +3 in my left hand while I use my longsword to cast True Strike. Do I get +3 to the attack roll?
No since True Strike doesn't specifically let you make a spell attack per se.
But many DM probably would rule otherwise.
This sort of question came up in a recent post about pact of the blade also. In that thread, it was brought up (I think by Plaguescarred) that most references to "weapon attacks" and "spell attacks" in the PHB are gone from class features, even though they are now glossary defined terms. On the other hand, It sure looks like the rules around magic items still differentiate between them. Maybe they're glossary defined for things like magic items.
This is confusing, and I would like clarification on it. I would probably say that per the glossary, true strike has an attack that qualifies as both a weapon attack and a spell attack -- it is made with a weapon and it is made as part of the effect of a spell. But I would highly doubt that the +3 of your focus and the +3 of your magic longsword should both apply or even that they're intended to apply.
I brought it up in this thread post #2 for weapon attack changed to attack made with a weapon.
But spell attack is still a thing in spells such as Fire Bolt or Scorching Ray for example. Some class features too still make spell attack as the Starry Form Star Druid.
I'm curious if people in this thread can explain how exactly a spell effect which exists only within a range of self can target a creature that is located elsewhere?
Fireball has a range of 150 feet and can affect a creature 165 feet away because the range determines the maximum start of the origin of the effect which can extend an additional 20 feet beyond.
This also applies to Self range spells like Gust of Wind and Burning Hands.
Apparently, the convention is also used for the Smites but not Chill Touch.
Yeah, one important thing to remember is that in the 2024 PHB, spells no longer use the "Range: Self (X radius, line, etc.)" notation used in the 2014 PHB. They've been updated to just "Range: Self".
So, you can't tell what the spell targets without reading the Effect of a spell.
This change isn't actually very important. It just provides better consistency for how all of the spells in the game are notated. Previously, this alternate notation was an attempt to indicate a slightly different mechanic, but this notation has been essentially replaced by the new Emanation category of an AoE.
The effect of the spell description will always tell you the size and shape of the area for an AoE if one exists for that spell. The range of the spell creates a restriction for where that AoE (if there is one) can be located because the point of origin for such an area must be within the range of the spell by rule.
Yeah while D&D Beyond still list Range/Area together, the spells in print actually don't anymore so spell such as Thunderwave has a Range Self, and not Range Self (15 ft cube) for example.
This doesn't really matter. The Thunderwave spell never really needed that notation since it's not really an Emanation spell in the way that such spells are defined today, and the area itself was always well defined within the effect block of the spell description so the information in the range parameter was redundant.
The Thunderwave spell still works the same way in 2024. It creates a well-defined AoE which originates within the range of self and fills a specific area with a spell effect. Creatures within that area (which contains the spell effect) are "targeted" by this spell effect and are therefore affected by the spell in the manner described in the spell description.
I'm curious if people in this thread can explain how exactly a spell effect which exists only within a range of self can target a creature that is located elsewhere?
Fireball has a range of 150 feet and can affect a creature 165 feet away because the range determines the maximum start of the origin of the effect which can extend an additional 20 feet beyond.
This also applies to Self range spells like Gust of Wind and Burning Hands.
Apparently, the convention is also used for the Smites but not Chill Touch.
Well, this is why I was specifically asking about spells whose spell effects are restricted to existing only within the range of self -- i.e. non-AoE spells. All AoE spells, by definition, will always extend beyond the range of self and therefore will affect anything within that area.
Keep in mind that if a spell is an AoE spell, the effect block of the spell description will explicitly say so.
But the question remains, and could perhaps be expanded into two parts, corresponding to the two types of spells:
1. How exactly can a spell effect which exists only within a range of self actually target a creature that is located elsewhere?
2. How exactly can an AoE spell's spell effect which exists only within a defined area actually target a creature that is located elsewhere?
(Spoiler alert: Such spell effects cannot target such creatures)
I'm curious if people in this thread can explain how exactly a spell effect which exists only within a range of self can target a creature that is located elsewhere?
The range entry does not define the target. (gonna repeat that.) The range entry does not define the target. The range entry does not define the target. The target is defined by the spell effects, strictly. That was true in 2014 and is true in 2024.
The two sometimes correlate. A spell that targets only the self will (usually) have a range of "self" ("all baseball caps are hats"). However, that does not mean that all spells with range of self target the self ("not all hats are baseball caps"). This is sometimes counterintuitive, yes. It had some unfortunately terse wording in 2014, that they realized caused confusion, and was substantially cleaned up in 2024. But the correlation (which is not causation) still exists. "Self. The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them, as specified in the spell."
"Self. The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them, as specified in the spell." -> Now, in 2024, many spells with a range of "self" describe how the effects "emanate" from them. Some do that explicitly, some implicitly. They are not required to be explicit about using the word "emanate" because, regardless, the effects define the target. For True Strike, the target is the target of the weapon attack --- the weapon attack that is essentially the somatic component of the spell.
I have a Rhythm-Maker's Drum, +3 in my left hand while I use my longsword to cast True Strike. Do I get +3 to the attack roll?
No since True Strike doesn't specifically let you make a spell attack per se.
But many DM probably would rule otherwise.
It doesn't specifically let you make a spell attack. Still, the argument is that if True Strike is Targeting the creature and you then make an attack roll, that is, by definition, a Spell Attack Roll (and by the definitions given in the book, they have a valid point if the interpretation is that the spell is targeting the creature rather than the caster).
To be clear, I disagree with that assessment. I am simply explaining why the issue has been raised.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If True Strike has any target it's the caster judging by how they address it.
So... you changed your mind?
I changed my mind that a Self range with no Area automatically makes the caster the target. Clearly it is possible for something else to be the target in such a case.
However, the fact that it is possible is not the same as something else must be the target. I still believe from the wording of the spell that the caster is intended to be the Target and their attack is similar to the extra attack a person operating under Haste gets to make or that a skeleton under the effect of Animate Dead makes and that the roll is not a 'spellcasting roll' and wouldn't benefit from a magic item that adds +1 to your spellcasting attacks.
However, I can understand how other people might interpret it differently.
Am I absolutely sure my interpretation is right? No, of course not. The wording is unclear, but until there is designer clarification I'm going to rule for any game where I DM that that is how the spell operates. Will I scream and cry if I'm playing and a different DM rules differently? Nope, nor will I lose any sleep over the fact that other people are interpreting it differently.
I think "you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting" makes it pretty clear the attack is part of the spell, making the attack's target the spell's target.
Also, it's not clear to me what difference that (or the OP's question) really makes.
This isn't how I interpret what he is saying in post #57. Fwiw, I agree with everything in that post -- I took it to mean that you need to read the spell description on a case-by-case basis to determine what the word "target" means for that description -- it might be referring to a spell target or it might be referring to the target of something else, such as an attack, depending on what it is actually saying. The word means different things in different contexts.
If you are referring to the section of the Glossary which defines what the word "target" means -- again, you have to realize that that is a definition of a target in general, not necessarily specifically a target of a spell. That definition is all encompassing and includes creatures that are the target of a mundane longbow attack, for example. To determine what is actually targeting the creature you need to look at the context of how the word is being used.
While it's true that the range and the target of a spell are two different concepts, they are related to each other in the sense that they depend on each other and work together to define what a spell is capable of doing.
For example, no matter how hard I try, I cannot cause the spell effect from my Magic Missile spell to target a creature that is standing 5000 feet away. This spell effect is restricted to originating and existing at a location that is not even close to the location of that creature. Since the spell effect cannot be located in a place that can interact with that creature, it cannot target that creature.
This is not true. The smite spells do not clearly target a creature other than the caster. They are carefully worded. They are either targeting the spellcaster and providing a buff to that spellcaster which is immediately applied to an attack, or they could be interpreted as targeting the weapon that the spellcaster is wielding that is being used in that attack, which is located within the range of self.
I don't agree that this is particularly unclear -- it works the way that you originally claimed. The wording of the spell, along with the Range parameter of the spell confirms this.
As for targeting the weapon -- the current design seems to be that if the spellcaster is wielding that weapon then it is within the range of self -- if that weapon is sitting on a shelf or on the ground or something then you'd be talking about a range of touch. In terms of grid-based play, touch range includes the squares that are adjacent to the spellcaster and the self range does not.
Those spells do target the spellcaster though. They cause the spellcaster to gain special divination powers. The actual spell effect exists at the spellcaster's location, so only the spellcaster is affected by the spell effect. If it didn't work that way, then the designers would not have designated a range of self for those spells.
Yes, I do agree with this. The spell is carefully worded in this way for exactly this reason.
Yes! I agree!
No, your original thoughts on this were correct -- there is no need to change your mind on this.
If the spell is cast that is restricted such that the spell effect must originate within a range of self and that spell effect does not create an Area of Effect and otherwise is not described as moving its location in some way, then there is no mechanism for that spell effect to interact with anything that is outside of the location of self. This location might include the spellcaster himself, or an object at the spellcaster's location or a point in space at the location that is shared by the spellcaster . . . but if another creature is located at some other location, the spell effect simply cannot target that creature since the spell effect is not located there.
That wording doesn't lead to that conclusion. "you make one attack with the weapon" means that you make an attack with the weapon. That's pretty much the opposite of targeting a creature with a spell.
Keep in mind also that the True Strike spell never actually mentions any creatures. So how can these hypothetical creatures be the target of the spell?
I have a Rhythm-Maker's Drum, +3 in my left hand while I use my longsword to cast True Strike. Do I get +3 to the attack roll?
The weapon is "used in the spell's casting," specifically to make an attack. And the target is "the creature or object targeted by an attack roll" per the definition that you keep trying to discount. This is very basic and obvious.
I don't think you were wrong that a Self spell with no listed Range automatically makes the caster the target
The spell may just also target other things too
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)
Thanks. I hate it. Green Flame Blade only working with War Caster if you choose not to make it jump to another person is nonsense. Can I use Gust of Wind, Burning Hands, Lightning Bolt, and whatnot as long as the creature that triggered the opportunity attack is the only one affected? Can I use Vampiric Touch and use it to make attacks against other creatures in later turns or do I have to end the spell? Jeremy Crawford's ruling, official or not sets a bad precedence. I don't see it the Sage Advice Compendium so I don't think it's official.
Counter to Jeremy Crawford, I think that RAW, Green Flame Blade is not usable with War Caster at any time. However, let's limit the tangents in one thread.
How to add Tooltips.
I'm curious if people in this thread can explain how exactly a spell effect which exists only within a range of self can target a creature that is located elsewhere?
For example, if I own a gun in real life and I want to use it to shoot a creature, the bullet from the gun must actually be capable of coming into contact with the creature in order for me to target that creature. If the bullet does not physically contact the creature, then that creature is not affected in any way by my gun. Just because the instruction manual for the gun says something like that I can target whoever I want . . . that doesn't mean that I can target a creature on the other side of the planet when I pull the trigger. The gun has a certain range. If the bullet didn't come into contact with that creature, then that creature was not successfully targeted.
Yeah, one important thing to remember is that in the 2024 PHB, spells no longer use the "Range: Self (X radius, line, etc.)" notation used in the 2014 PHB. They've been updated to just "Range: Self".
So, you can't tell what the spell targets without reading the Effect of a spell.
You're a humble man.
No since True Strike doesn't specifically let you make a spell attack per se.
But many DM probably would rule otherwise.
Yeah while D&D Beyond still list Range/Area together, the spells in print actually don't anymore so spell such as Thunderwave has a Range Self, and not Range Self (15 ft cube) for example.
This sort of question came up earlier in this thread. Then, it was brought up (I think by Plaguescarred) that most references to "weapon attacks" and "spell attacks" in the PHB are gone from class features, even though they are now glossary defined terms. On the other hand, It sure looks like the rules around magic items still differentiate between them. Maybe they're glossary defined for things like magic items.
This is confusing, and I would like clarification on it. I would probably say that per the glossary, true strike has an attack that qualifies as both a weapon attack and a spell attack -- it is made with a weapon and it is made as part of the effect of a spell. But I would highly doubt that the +3 of your focus and the +3 of your magic longsword should both apply or even that they're intended to apply.
I brought it up in this thread post #2 for weapon attack changed to attack made with a weapon.
But spell attack is still a thing in spells such as Fire Bolt or Scorching Ray for example. Some class features too still make spell attack as the Starry Form Star Druid.
Fireball has a range of 150 feet and can affect a creature 165 feet away because the range determines the maximum start of the origin of the effect which can extend an additional 20 feet beyond.
This also applies to Self range spells like Gust of Wind and Burning Hands.
Apparently, the convention is also used for the Smites but not Chill Touch.
How to add Tooltips.
This change isn't actually very important. It just provides better consistency for how all of the spells in the game are notated. Previously, this alternate notation was an attempt to indicate a slightly different mechanic, but this notation has been essentially replaced by the new Emanation category of an AoE.
The effect of the spell description will always tell you the size and shape of the area for an AoE if one exists for that spell. The range of the spell creates a restriction for where that AoE (if there is one) can be located because the point of origin for such an area must be within the range of the spell by rule.
This doesn't really matter. The Thunderwave spell never really needed that notation since it's not really an Emanation spell in the way that such spells are defined today, and the area itself was always well defined within the effect block of the spell description so the information in the range parameter was redundant.
The Thunderwave spell still works the same way in 2024. It creates a well-defined AoE which originates within the range of self and fills a specific area with a spell effect. Creatures within that area (which contains the spell effect) are "targeted" by this spell effect and are therefore affected by the spell in the manner described in the spell description.
Well, this is why I was specifically asking about spells whose spell effects are restricted to existing only within the range of self -- i.e. non-AoE spells. All AoE spells, by definition, will always extend beyond the range of self and therefore will affect anything within that area.
Keep in mind that if a spell is an AoE spell, the effect block of the spell description will explicitly say so.
But the question remains, and could perhaps be expanded into two parts, corresponding to the two types of spells:
1. How exactly can a spell effect which exists only within a range of self actually target a creature that is located elsewhere?
2. How exactly can an AoE spell's spell effect which exists only within a defined area actually target a creature that is located elsewhere?
(Spoiler alert: Such spell effects cannot target such creatures)
The range entry does not define the target. (gonna repeat that.) The range entry does not define the target. The range entry does not define the target. The target is defined by the spell effects, strictly. That was true in 2014 and is true in 2024.
The two sometimes correlate. A spell that targets only the self will (usually) have a range of "self" ("all baseball caps are hats"). However, that does not mean that all spells with range of self target the self ("not all hats are baseball caps"). This is sometimes counterintuitive, yes. It had some unfortunately terse wording in 2014, that they realized caused confusion, and was substantially cleaned up in 2024. But the correlation (which is not causation) still exists. "Self. The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them, as specified in the spell."
"Self. The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them, as specified in the spell." -> Now, in 2024, many spells with a range of "self" describe how the effects "emanate" from them. Some do that explicitly, some implicitly. They are not required to be explicit about using the word "emanate" because, regardless, the effects define the target. For True Strike, the target is the target of the weapon attack --- the weapon attack that is essentially the somatic component of the spell.
It doesn't specifically let you make a spell attack. Still, the argument is that if True Strike is Targeting the creature and you then make an attack roll, that is, by definition, a Spell Attack Roll (and by the definitions given in the book, they have a valid point if the interpretation is that the spell is targeting the creature rather than the caster).
To be clear, I disagree with that assessment. I am simply explaining why the issue has been raised.