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.
Sorry, I meant the physical book, yes.
Honestly, having the Range/Area in DDB is a good thing. It's definitely practical.
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?
How so is because the spell do what it says it do, so a spell effect with a Range of Self that would say it can target creature elsewhere, would exactly do that despite originating from the caster. Scrying can for example can target a creature on the same plane of existence as the caster yet it originate from it. Or Eyebite let you target a creature within 60 feet of you despite originating from you.
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.
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?
How so is because the spell do what it says it do, so a spell effect with a Range of Self that would say it can target creature elsewhere, would exactly do that despite originating from the caster.
Yeah, I figured we'd get the old "spells do what they say" answer for this question eventually. That's a complete cop out in this case. I promise, there really is a whole plethora of rules and mechanics in this game which describe exactly how the process of spellcasting actually works. There's actually an entire chapter in the PHB dedicated to it. We also don't get to pick and choose some portions of the spell description to follow and other parts to ignore -- parameters such as the range and the duration are parts of the spell description too and they provide information that is just as important as the effect block to the overall understanding of how the spell actually functions within the mechanics of the game.
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.
You've completely missed the point. The range entry restricts what is possible to be targeted by the spell because the spell effect that is created by the spell (which is described in the effect block) can only exist in certain specific locations in the world based on where the spellcaster is located when he casts it.
All of the general rules of the game describe a process where the casting of the spell results in the spell effect originating into existence somewhere, and that this spell effect must physically come into contact with a creature in order for that creature to be affected by it.
A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate
. . .
Self. The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them, as specified in the spell.
. . .
If a spell has movable effects [the spell description must explicitly say so], they aren’t restricted by its range unless the spell’s description says otherwise.
Areas of Effect. Some spells, such as Thunderwave, cover an area called an area of effect, which is defined in the rules glossary. The area determines what the spell targets. The description of a spell specifies whether it has an area of effect, which is typically one of these shapes: Cone, Cube, Cylinder, Emanation, Line, or Sphere.
. . .
An area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the effect’s energy erupts.
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.
Invalid Targets. If you cast a spell ON someone or something that can’t be affected by it, nothing happens to that target,
Many spells specify that a target makes a saving throw to avoid some or all of a spell's effects.
For example, if two Clerics cast BlessON the same target, that target gains the spell’s benefit only once
I think that what a lot of you are missing is that the spell effect is an actual thing that exists in the world, not (just) a description of things that can happen to a creature. It's an actual thing that originates at the designated location within range. That thing (the spell effect) only affects creatures that it interacts with. You generally cast a spell "ON" something to affect it. Sometimes you cast an AoE spell at a location so that the spell effect fills up a defined area. Those spells interact with a creature in a similar way -- especially with the 2024 version of the term "target" -- by essentially being cast "ON" a group of creatures.
These are basics of 5e spellcasting mechanics. If we can't even get on the same page that a spell effect must actually interact with a creature in order to affect ("target") it and that it cannot instead "somehow" affect a creature on the other side of the planet, then we are just going to be talking past each other. This is a core design of how the game works.
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 will say again - target has more than one usage in the rules, and multiple usages can show up in the same spell
Target
A target is the creature or object 1) targeted by an attack roll, 2) forced to make a saving throw by an effect, or 3) selected to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon. (Additions mine)
True Strike targets the caster with an effect (3). True Strike also allows the caster to target another creature with a weapon attack (1). These are not contradictory or mutually exclusive
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)
Scrying can for example can target a creature on the same plane of existence as the caster yet it originate from it. Or Eyebite let you target a creature within 60 feet of you despite originating from you.
Scrying is an example of a spell which buffs the spellcaster with a special ability. The spell has a range of self so the actual spell effect that is created when the spell is cast exists only at the spellcaster's location. This spell effect affects the spellcaster in the manner described. It gives the spellcaster a special ability to target a creature with a special (non-magical) effect which it must make a saving throw against.
So, by the wording of the spell description using the term "target" and by the Glossary definition of the word "target" (" . . . forced to make a saving throw by an effect"), the creature in question absolutely is the target of something -- it's just not a target of this spell. It literally cannot be, by rule because the spell effect for this spell only exists within the range of self and that creature is not at that location.
This is the only interpretation for this spell which actually conforms to the general rules of spellcasting so we know that the spell must function in this way.
. . .
Eyebite functions in a similar way. The spell effect from the spell causes the spellcaster's eyes to become an inky void and it buffs the spellcaster with a special ability. The effects "Asleep", "Panicked" and "Sickened" are not spell effects from this spell. They are effects that you can cause to a creature by using your new special ability. The actual spell effect which exists as a result of casting this spell is located at the spellcaster's location and serves only to provide the spellcaster with this ability (and to cause his eyes to become an inky void).
If instead the spell effect from the Eyebite spell was meant to actually shoot out from your eyes and hit the creature in question then the Range for this spell would have been defined as 60 feet, not self. But given the information that is given in the spell description (from the parameters and from the effect block), we know that it doesn't function that way -- instead, it functions as I've described above. It must, since that interpretation is the only one which conforms to the general rules of spellcasting.
. . .
Chill Touch functions as expected. The range is Touch and the description specifies a melee spell attack against a target within range, so that target is a target of the spell.
. . .
Shocking Grasp indeed functions similarly to Chill Touch in this respect.
. . .
The wording for Vampiric Touch is problematic and probably should be changed for improved clarity.
For one thing, you need to be careful to use the character's unarmed reach instead of the reach of whatever weapon he might be holding, but it might take a few readings of the description before realizing that.
It is incredibly rare for a spell to use a phrase like "within reach" instead of "within range" to describe where a spell effect can be located in order to interact with a target creature. They were probably trying to leave the door open to the possibility of different types of characters having a potentially different reach, but this could have been just as accurately handled by just making the spell a "Touch" range spell. (Hmm, never mind, I guess a Touch range really wouldn't work for an ongoing duration spell like this where you are meant to be able to attack different creatures in different locations as you move around as part of the spell).
I guess the other reason why it's probably written this way is because the spell has an ongoing duration, and the designers probably want the spell effect to move along with the spellcaster's movement turn after turn. The problem is, technically, as written I'm not sure if it functions that way. I'm looking for a general rule which states that an ongoing spell effect that is cast "on" a creature will always move "with" that creature. It's probably true but right now I just can't find such a rule. In order to avoid this, the spell could have been written as an Emanation spell which explicitly does have such a rule. But defining an Emanation such that the creature's reach could potentially vary might be difficult also, so maybe they are pretty much stuck with what they did
As currently written, it's a little unclear. The spell effect clearly originates at the spellcaster's location and is probably meant to follow the spellcaster's location, but a "melee spell attack" definitely indicates that this spell effect is capable of targeting an adjacent creature. It also does not seem to be an AoE of any sort. This appears to be an explicit exception where the spellcaster can actually move the location of the spell effect slightly when making these attacks.
Scrying is an example of a spell which buffs the spellcaster with a special ability.
Scrying is an excellent example. It has a range of 'self' and never mentions an emanation of any sort, yet explicitly says what it targets: "You can see and hear a creature you choose that is on the same plane of existence as you." It literally refers to that creature as the "target" --- "The target makes a Wisdom saving throw, which..." etc. Target, singular. Not targets. It directly contradicts the idea that the caster is a target.
The same is true of every Smite spell (I checked). And Booming Blade. And Green-Flame Blade (though it references an optional second target, which is still not the caster).
You are still misinterpreting the range rules. The target is specified by the description of the spell, and not the range. The section on "Range" even says as much: "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." [emphasis added]
For True Strike, the range is self (the spell's effect originates from the caster) and the effects are not limited by the range --- the target is the target of a weapon attack, which is made with a weapon being used as the material component --- and the attack itself is effectively the somatic component. The weapon is not limited to the range of self, and neither is the attack, nor the target.
Ok, fair enough. The written rules and mechanics and how they function for this topic have been adequately explained at this point. There's not much more that can be said about it in this thread. As always, however you choose to run your game just make sure that your players are aware of that ahead of time and I'm sure it will be fine.
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 will say again - target has more than one usage in the rules, and multiple usages can show up in the same spell
Target
A target is the creature or object 1) targeted by an attack roll, 2) forced to make a saving throw by an effect, or 3) selected to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon. (Additions mine)
True Strike targets the caster with an effect (3). True Strike also allows the caster to target another creature with a weapon attack (1). These are not contradictory or mutually exclusive
Agreed. Self without an Area does not mandate that the spellcaster is the Target, but that fact doesn't mean that, in the case of True Strike, the caster cannot be the Target.
Now, yes, the creature being attacked with the weapon is the Target of an attack, but that could simply be a Weapon Attack and not a Spell Attack, and the distinction is important since some items give bonuses with Spell Attack Rolls.
Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon, * - (a weapon with which you have proficiency and that is worth 1+ CP), used in the spell’s casting. The attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity. If the attack deals damage, it can be Radiant damage or the weapon’s normal damage type (your choice).
First, “* - (a weapon with which you have proficiency and that is worth 1+ CP)” is a weapon you must be proficient with, meaning if your class only allows certain weapons to be proficient in, only those weapons can be used in the spells casting.
This weapon is the one used in making an attack that uses the casters spellcasting modifier instead of the weapons normal required ability score modifier.
if the attack made with the weapon from the casted spell deals damage, then the type of damage the weapon normally deals in an attack(PSB), can be replaced by Radiant.( or not, player choice.)
Et al, and extra.
In a nutshell, your casting a spell on yourself so you can shank a creature.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
For True Strike, the range is self (the spell's effect originates from the caster) and the effects are not limited by the range --- the target is the target of a weapon attack, which is made with a weapon being used as the material component --- and the attack itself is effectively the somatic component. The weapon is not limited to the range of self, and neither is the attack, nor the target.
The Spell component is not the attack with the weapon it's done during spellcasting and somatic components is seperate from, and precedes spell effects So when casting True Strike, you make forceful gestures with a weapon, then you're guided by a flash of magical insight and make one attack with the weapon See this Sage Advice Compendium as an example:
Is the sentence of suggestion in the suggestion spell the verbal component, or is the verbal component separate?
Verbal components are mystic words, not normal speech. The spell’s suggestion is an intelligible utterance that is separate from the verbal component. The command spell is the simplest example of this principle. The utterance of the verbal component is separate from, and precedes, any verbal utterance that would bring about the spell’s effect.
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 will say again - target has more than one usage in the rules, and multiple usages can show up in the same spell
Target
A target is the creature or object 1) targeted by an attack roll, 2) forced to make a saving throw by an effect, or 3) selected to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon. (Additions mine)
True Strike targets the caster with an effect (3). True Strike also allows the caster to target another creature with a weapon attack (1). These are not contradictory or mutually exclusive
Agreed. Self without an Area does not mandate that the spellcaster is the Target, but that fact doesn't mean that, in the case of True Strike, the caster cannot be the Target.
Now, yes, the creature being attacked with the weapon is the Target of an attack, but that could simply be a Weapon Attack and not a Spell Attack, and the distinction is important since some items give bonuses with Spell Attack Rolls.
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes." True strike can be both a weapon and spell attack. You didn't make an argument in that post, you just said, 'Well, maybe it isn't a spell attack', ignoring the definition of a spell attack, which is written in the OP's post!
Also, to anyone who doesn't understand the practical difference, a closely related question is whether agonizing blast works with true strike. If you say the attack isn't part of the spell, it wouldn't, and vice versa.
Also, to anyone who doesn't understand the practical difference, a closely related question is whether agonizing blast works with true strike. If you say the attack isn't part of the spell, it wouldn't, and vice versa.
Which is, perhaps, kinda telling. Why is everyone so obsessed with the question of True Strike and Agonizing Blast, when it would only compete with Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast at tier 1?
Scrying can for example can target a creature on the same plane of existence as the caster yet it originate from it. Or Eyebite let you target a creature within 60 feet of you despite originating from you.
So, by the wording of the spell description using the term "target" and by the Glossary definition of the word "target" (" . . . forced to make a saving throw by an effect"), the creature in question absolutely is the target of something -- it's just not a target of this spell. It literally cannot be, by rule because the spell effect for this spell only exists within the range of self and that creature is not at that location.
That's funny. I wonder what targets all plants within a half-milein plant growth's enrichment option, given the spell's range of 150 feet.
Also, to anyone who doesn't understand the practical difference, a closely related question is whether agonizing blast works with true strike. If you say the attack isn't part of the spell, it wouldn't, and vice versa.
Which is, perhaps, kinda telling. Why is everyone so obsessed with the question of True Strike and Agonizing Blast, when it would only compete with Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast at tier 1?
True Strike is (surprisingly) significantly better at tier one (before level 5), and is still competitive at tier two (before level 11)
Also, to anyone who doesn't understand the practical difference, a closely related question is whether agonizing blast works with true strike. If you say the attack isn't part of the spell, it wouldn't, and vice versa.
Which is, perhaps, kinda telling. Why is everyone so obsessed with the question of True Strike and Agonizing Blast, when it would only compete with Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast at tier 1?
When you get double your stat damage it is pretty dang good. As pointed out it makes it the best option at levels 2-4, and basically tied with eldritch blast at levels 5-10.
Also, to anyone who doesn't understand the practical difference, a closely related question is whether agonizing blast works with true strike. If you say the attack isn't part of the spell, it wouldn't, and vice versa.
Which is, perhaps, kinda telling. Why is everyone so obsessed with the question of True Strike and Agonizing Blast, when it would only compete with Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast at tier 1?
When you get double your stat damage it is pretty dang good. As pointed out it makes it the best option at levels 2-4, and basically tied with eldritch blast at levels 5-10.
Both of those require committing to Pact of the Blade (for martial melee weapons and their dice), and likely committing to spending your ASIs on feats that don't improve your CHA (and/or multiclassing which delays your ASIs), and limiting yourself to melee range. Seems like a reasonable trade-off. So I still don't see the big deal.
(Or maybe this just illustrates how OP Eldritch Blast is ;)
Since True Strike says "you make one attack with the weapon...", does that mean you'd be able to use it with extra attack you gain at Level 5?
Like the OP questions, is it a weapon attack or a spell attack? If it's a spell attack, then it couldn't be applied to extra attack because it's a magic action. If it's a weapon attack, then that would lead me to believe it would apply to extra attack, since it's an attack action.
I have a level 4 Battle Master with True Strike for a Curse of Strahd campaign and I am trying to figure out if I need to ditch it once I hit level 5.
I just took Fey-Touched at Level 4 with Hunter's Mark, so I can stack Hunter's Mark damage on top of my weapon damage and Battle Master Maneuver damage.
I've only been playing D&D since September, so much of this stuff confuses me still...
Since True Strike says "you make one attack with the weapon...", does that mean you'd be able to use it with extra attack you gain at Level 5?
Like the OP questions, is it a weapon attack or a spell attack? If it's a spell attack, then it couldn't be applied to extra attack because it's a magic action. If it's a weapon attack, then that would lead me to believe it would apply to extra attack, since it's an attack action.
I have a level 4 Battle Master with True Strike for a Curse of Strahd campaign and I am trying to figure out if I need to ditch it once I hit level 5.
I just took Fey-Touched at Level 4 with Hunter's Mark, so I can stack Hunter's Mark damage on top of my weapon damage and Battle Master Maneuver damage.
I've only been playing D&D since September, so much of this stuff confuses me still...
True Strike is a spell, so you can not cast it as one of your attacks as part of the Attack action. As with casting any spell with a casting time of an action, you have to use the Magic action to cast it. Through casting True Strike, you do make a weapon attack, but that does not itself make it eligible to be used via the Attack action. Some exceptions apply, such as the Eldritch Knight Fighter subclass' War Magic ability, which states "When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips that has a casting time of an action." Outside of a specific exception like that, however, casting a spell (as an action) always requires taking the Magic action.
Sorry, I meant the physical book, yes.
Honestly, having the Range/Area in DDB is a good thing. It's definitely practical.
How so is because the spell do what it says it do, so a spell effect with a Range of Self that would say it can target creature elsewhere, would exactly do that despite originating from the caster. Scrying can for example can target a creature on the same plane of existence as the caster yet it originate from it. Or Eyebite let you target a creature within 60 feet of you despite originating from you.
If I'm not mistaken, a similar example to Chill Touch would be Shocking Grasp.
Both have Range: Touch, you need to make a melee spell attack, but they could also have Range: Self and be similar to Vampiric Touch.
Yeah, I figured we'd get the old "spells do what they say" answer for this question eventually. That's a complete cop out in this case. I promise, there really is a whole plethora of rules and mechanics in this game which describe exactly how the process of spellcasting actually works. There's actually an entire chapter in the PHB dedicated to it. We also don't get to pick and choose some portions of the spell description to follow and other parts to ignore -- parameters such as the range and the duration are parts of the spell description too and they provide information that is just as important as the effect block to the overall understanding of how the spell actually functions within the mechanics of the game.
You've completely missed the point. The range entry restricts what is possible to be targeted by the spell because the spell effect that is created by the spell (which is described in the effect block) can only exist in certain specific locations in the world based on where the spellcaster is located when he casts it.
All of the general rules of the game describe a process where the casting of the spell results in the spell effect originating into existence somewhere, and that this spell effect must physically come into contact with a creature in order for that creature to be affected by it.
I think that what a lot of you are missing is that the spell effect is an actual thing that exists in the world, not (just) a description of things that can happen to a creature. It's an actual thing that originates at the designated location within range. That thing (the spell effect) only affects creatures that it interacts with. You generally cast a spell "ON" something to affect it. Sometimes you cast an AoE spell at a location so that the spell effect fills up a defined area. Those spells interact with a creature in a similar way -- especially with the 2024 version of the term "target" -- by essentially being cast "ON" a group of creatures.
These are basics of 5e spellcasting mechanics. If we can't even get on the same page that a spell effect must actually interact with a creature in order to affect ("target") it and that it cannot instead "somehow" affect a creature on the other side of the planet, then we are just going to be talking past each other. This is a core design of how the game works.
I will say again - target has more than one usage in the rules, and multiple usages can show up in the same spell
True Strike targets the caster with an effect (3). True Strike also allows the caster to target another creature with a weapon attack (1). These are not contradictory or mutually exclusive
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)
Scrying is an example of a spell which buffs the spellcaster with a special ability. The spell has a range of self so the actual spell effect that is created when the spell is cast exists only at the spellcaster's location. This spell effect affects the spellcaster in the manner described. It gives the spellcaster a special ability to target a creature with a special (non-magical) effect which it must make a saving throw against.
So, by the wording of the spell description using the term "target" and by the Glossary definition of the word "target" (" . . . forced to make a saving throw by an effect"), the creature in question absolutely is the target of something -- it's just not a target of this spell. It literally cannot be, by rule because the spell effect for this spell only exists within the range of self and that creature is not at that location.
This is the only interpretation for this spell which actually conforms to the general rules of spellcasting so we know that the spell must function in this way.
. . .
Eyebite functions in a similar way. The spell effect from the spell causes the spellcaster's eyes to become an inky void and it buffs the spellcaster with a special ability. The effects "Asleep", "Panicked" and "Sickened" are not spell effects from this spell. They are effects that you can cause to a creature by using your new special ability. The actual spell effect which exists as a result of casting this spell is located at the spellcaster's location and serves only to provide the spellcaster with this ability (and to cause his eyes to become an inky void).
If instead the spell effect from the Eyebite spell was meant to actually shoot out from your eyes and hit the creature in question then the Range for this spell would have been defined as 60 feet, not self. But given the information that is given in the spell description (from the parameters and from the effect block), we know that it doesn't function that way -- instead, it functions as I've described above. It must, since that interpretation is the only one which conforms to the general rules of spellcasting.
. . .
Chill Touch functions as expected. The range is Touch and the description specifies a melee spell attack against a target within range, so that target is a target of the spell.
. . .
Shocking Grasp indeed functions similarly to Chill Touch in this respect.
. . .
The wording for Vampiric Touch is problematic and probably should be changed for improved clarity.
For one thing, you need to be careful to use the character's unarmed reach instead of the reach of whatever weapon he might be holding, but it might take a few readings of the description before realizing that.
It is incredibly rare for a spell to use a phrase like "within reach" instead of "within range" to describe where a spell effect can be located in order to interact with a target creature. They were probably trying to leave the door open to the possibility of different types of characters having a potentially different reach, but this could have been just as accurately handled by just making the spell a "Touch" range spell. (Hmm, never mind, I guess a Touch range really wouldn't work for an ongoing duration spell like this where you are meant to be able to attack different creatures in different locations as you move around as part of the spell).
I guess the other reason why it's probably written this way is because the spell has an ongoing duration, and the designers probably want the spell effect to move along with the spellcaster's movement turn after turn. The problem is, technically, as written I'm not sure if it functions that way. I'm looking for a general rule which states that an ongoing spell effect that is cast "on" a creature will always move "with" that creature. It's probably true but right now I just can't find such a rule. In order to avoid this, the spell could have been written as an Emanation spell which explicitly does have such a rule. But defining an Emanation such that the creature's reach could potentially vary might be difficult also, so maybe they are pretty much stuck with what they did
As currently written, it's a little unclear. The spell effect clearly originates at the spellcaster's location and is probably meant to follow the spellcaster's location, but a "melee spell attack" definitely indicates that this spell effect is capable of targeting an adjacent creature. It also does not seem to be an AoE of any sort. This appears to be an explicit exception where the spellcaster can actually move the location of the spell effect slightly when making these attacks.
Scrying is an excellent example. It has a range of 'self' and never mentions an emanation of any sort, yet explicitly says what it targets: "You can see and hear a creature you choose that is on the same plane of existence as you." It literally refers to that creature as the "target" --- "The target makes a Wisdom saving throw, which..." etc. Target, singular. Not targets. It directly contradicts the idea that the caster is a target.
The same is true of every Smite spell (I checked). And Booming Blade. And Green-Flame Blade (though it references an optional second target, which is still not the caster).
You are still misinterpreting the range rules. The target is specified by the description of the spell, and not the range. The section on "Range" even says as much: "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." [emphasis added]
For True Strike, the range is self (the spell's effect originates from the caster) and the effects are not limited by the range --- the target is the target of a weapon attack, which is made with a weapon being used as the material component --- and the attack itself is effectively the somatic component. The weapon is not limited to the range of self, and neither is the attack, nor the target.
Ok, fair enough. The written rules and mechanics and how they function for this topic have been adequately explained at this point. There's not much more that can be said about it in this thread. As always, however you choose to run your game just make sure that your players are aware of that ahead of time and I'm sure it will be fine.
Agreed. Self without an Area does not mandate that the spellcaster is the Target, but that fact doesn't mean that, in the case of True Strike, the caster cannot be the Target.
Now, yes, the creature being attacked with the weapon is the Target of an attack, but that could simply be a Weapon Attack and not a Spell Attack, and the distinction is important since some items give bonuses with Spell Attack Rolls.
How to understand the description of True Strike:
Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon, * - (a weapon with which you have proficiency and that is worth 1+ CP), used in the spell’s casting.
The attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity.
If the attack deals damage, it can be Radiant damage or the weapon’s normal damage type (your choice).
First, “* - (a weapon with which you have proficiency and that is worth 1+ CP)” is a weapon you must be proficient with, meaning if your class only allows certain weapons to be proficient in, only those weapons can be used in the spells casting.
This weapon is the one used in making an attack that uses the casters spellcasting modifier instead of the weapons normal required ability score modifier.
if the attack made with the weapon from the casted spell deals damage, then the type of damage the weapon normally deals in an attack(PSB), can be replaced by Radiant.( or not, player choice.)
Et al, and extra.
In a nutshell, your casting a spell on yourself so you can shank a creature.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
The Spell component is not the attack with the weapon it's done during spellcasting and somatic components is seperate from, and precedes spell effects So when casting True Strike, you make forceful gestures with a weapon, then you're guided by a flash of magical insight and make one attack with the weapon See this Sage Advice Compendium as an example:
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes." True strike can be both a weapon and spell attack. You didn't make an argument in that post, you just said, 'Well, maybe it isn't a spell attack', ignoring the definition of a spell attack, which is written in the OP's post!
Also, to anyone who doesn't understand the practical difference, a closely related question is whether agonizing blast works with true strike. If you say the attack isn't part of the spell, it wouldn't, and vice versa.
Which is, perhaps, kinda telling. Why is everyone so obsessed with the question of True Strike and Agonizing Blast, when it would only compete with Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast at tier 1?
That's funny. I wonder what targets all plants within a half-mile in plant growth's enrichment option, given the spell's range of 150 feet.
The notable aspect with other spells is that True strike is an attack with a weapon, which can be affected by some features.
True Strike is (surprisingly) significantly better at tier one (before level 5), and is still competitive at tier two (before level 11)
Here is a desmos graph of this: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/iyqdrogcwt. (this is using a weapon that does 2d6 damage)
Couple this with weapon masteries/feats/class features, and true strike is often the better choice until tier 3.
When you get double your stat damage it is pretty dang good. As pointed out it makes it the best option at levels 2-4, and basically tied with eldritch blast at levels 5-10.
Both of those require committing to Pact of the Blade (for martial melee weapons and their dice), and likely committing to spending your ASIs on feats that don't improve your CHA (and/or multiclassing which delays your ASIs), and limiting yourself to melee range. Seems like a reasonable trade-off. So I still don't see the big deal.
(Or maybe this just illustrates how OP Eldritch Blast is ;)
Since True Strike says "you make one attack with the weapon...", does that mean you'd be able to use it with extra attack you gain at Level 5?
Like the OP questions, is it a weapon attack or a spell attack? If it's a spell attack, then it couldn't be applied to extra attack because it's a magic action. If it's a weapon attack, then that would lead me to believe it would apply to extra attack, since it's an attack action.
I have a level 4 Battle Master with True Strike for a Curse of Strahd campaign and I am trying to figure out if I need to ditch it once I hit level 5.
I just took Fey-Touched at Level 4 with Hunter's Mark, so I can stack Hunter's Mark damage on top of my weapon damage and Battle Master Maneuver damage.
I've only been playing D&D since September, so much of this stuff confuses me still...
True Strike is a spell, so you can not cast it as one of your attacks as part of the Attack action. As with casting any spell with a casting time of an action, you have to use the Magic action to cast it. Through casting True Strike, you do make a weapon attack, but that does not itself make it eligible to be used via the Attack action.
Some exceptions apply, such as the Eldritch Knight Fighter subclass' War Magic ability, which states "When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips that has a casting time of an action."
Outside of a specific exception like that, however, casting a spell (as an action) always requires taking the Magic action.