what I'll do instead of any of this is offer a simpler arrangement, we simply agree to disagree, this again has gone on too far.
As far as I personally see it, the rules for targeting a pretty simple and the fluff line at the start of true strike simply does not make the caster a target to the same degree that being in an area of the silence spell does not make a creature the target. Nothing says that a spell effect, effecting you makes you a target of a spell, the rules on spells and targeting simply says you are selected which clearly implies choice. Further to this the rules for spell effects says that a caster can target themselves with a spell if they can target creatures with it and that self targeting is not prohibited via the target requiring to a creature other than yourself or has to be hostile.
There is nothing in the rule that says any spell cast with a range of self, that effects only the caster, targets the caster, such a line does not exist. If you're going to insist that they do, then you can do that, nor do you have to agree with how I read it, but I simply do not see it working any other way with how the rules are written.
Please let me say this;
I can completely respect agreeing to disagree. I have always maintained that your interpretation is a completely valid one. I just disagree that it is the only one.
All I ask is that you not act as though other interpretations aren't valid simply because you disagree with them (which you are kind of doing when you say 'nothing in the rules'. There is something, you just feel that certain other aspects override them, and again, that is completely reasonable for you to do, but acting as though those parts don't exist is a bit insulting, but I won't harp on that any longer) and make statements such as 'all people are doing is insisting'.
This was a prepared interview, where he described (in great detail) the various meanings of Range: Self. It lines up exactly with the 2024 changes, which clear things up in this exact direction.
It's the exact opposite. The rules have evolved away from everything that he is saying here. The entire notation of Range (parentheses) has been deprecated from the game in 2024 to the point where spells such as Booming Blade are not even compatible with the 2024 rules until they are eventually republished with the necessary changes. An entirely new mechanic has been created with the introduction of the Emanation AoE that did not exist at the time of that interview.
The emanation AoE literally replaced the Range: Self (<distance>) notation. For the very reasons stated in the interview. Furthermore, the 2024 rules removed any direct tie between Point of Origin and Target, to solve the very confusion he was discussing in the interview.
Furthermore, even for the 2014 ruleset just about everything that he was saying in that interview was demonstrably wrong and never made it into any officially published written Sage Advice explanations.
The interview is a blatant description of RAI (and, in fact, a pedantic explanation of RAW) for 2014. And it's obvious that that RAI was extended to 2024, as evidenced by the changed wording and the new Emanation AoE.
...
Something being "cast at" is a vague term --- in Warcaster it can mean "point of origin" or "target." It's not defined anywhere. "Cast on" isn't either, but is more-or-less synonymous with being the point of origin. Neither term is used in a particularly load-bearing manner.
Point of origin and target are not the same thing. "A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate", "An area of effect has a point of origin", etc. - For example, if you center a Fireball on a creature, then the creature is (more or less) both the origin and a target. (They aren't actually "are" the origin so much as overlapping it.) - Similarly, if you center the Fireball on yourself (and aren't an Evoker using Sculpt Spells to exclude yourself) then you will have targetted yourself. - But if you center it in empty space, the point of origin (the place "at" which you cast the spell) is not a target, because it's neither a creature nor object selected to receive effects / attacked by an attack / forced to make a save.
The only way the point of origin can be a target is if the spell's description and/or the AoE rules say so. - For example, Animal Friendship explicitly says you target a single beast within range.
True Strike is not an AoE. It defines a target via an attack in the spell's description. At no point does it declare the caster as a target, and at no point does it incude the caster as a target in an AoE.
The RAI of Warcaster has always been that the spell you are casting is a one-for-one replacement for the Opportunity Attack you are forgoing. As such, it should only make one (1) attack roll against the creature that triggered it, or force that one (1) creature to make a saving throw -- or, in extreme high-level cases like Power Words, affects that one (1) creature with something that requires neither attack roll nor saving throw
Whether a spell like True Strike also "targets" the caster with some magical effect is completely irrelevant to this purpose, and arguing that the caster is also a "target" misses the point of Warcaster's Reactive Spell feature
I will agree that the RAI would appear to allow Opportunity Attack. It has never been my intention to say it hasn't. I have only been approaching this from a strict 'RAW' form.
Two things I will note: The first is that the interpretation that True Strike is only Targeting the caster does have an importance in some other edge case scenarios. The biggest one i know of is that if the spell is additionally Targeting the creature attacked then, by a strictly RAW perspective, the roll becomes a Spell Attack. This means it can receive a bonus from items such as Wand of the War Mage. This is a problem because the wording of the spell and magical weapons, by a strictly RAW perspective, means they also tend to add their bonuses and such double dipping can get a bit unbalancing.
The second thing is that I am not 100% convinced that the limit is a single attack roll. Reactive Strike does not talk about multiple rolls at all, only the valid Targets, and as long as all of those rolls are all confined to the same Target I, personally, would not take the position that the RAI only allows a single roll (This very question came up in a game I was playing last night when one of our casters wanted to use Reactive Casting with Eldritch Blast). Of course we are dealing in matters of interpretation and your mileage may vary.
I should note, despite what it might sound like, I am not a big fan of 'strict RAW'. I am much more of a fan of RAI. Primarily I focus on RAW as a counter to those people trying to find loopholes (such as arguing that they must be allowed to stack items that give bonuses to spell casting and weapons that give bonuses). Yes, I recognize that as the DM I can always just say 'No', but since that never seems to satisfy such people I always like to find out where their RAW break down. (Sure, your peasant railgun accelerates the spear to near light speed, by the RAW. Now roll your 1d6. What? You want more damage? Where in the RAW does it say that that happens?)
To recap: The main issue that disqualifies the True Strike spell from being used for the Reactive Spell feature is that the True Strike spell is not being cast AT the creature in question as is required by that feature
You are fundamentally incorrect, either by RAW or by RAI
Actually, and just to be pedantic, the spell could be Targeting the creature and still be disallowed under the RAW if you subscribe to the interpretation that the spell also Targets the caster (because now the creature triggering the AoO is not the only one being Targeted).
And just for clarity, I don't think it violates RAI and, as I said above, I am not an advocate of strict RAW readings. I only point this out so that people can be aware of the possible arguments that might be raised.
The emanation AoE literally replaced the Range: Self (<distance>) notation. For the very reasons stated in the interview.
This is not true. The Emanation in 2024 is a new concept.
In 2014, the Self (<distance>) notation referred to a spell that targeted the spellcaster in order to create a spherical AoE centered at the spellcaster's location which might potentially affect (but not target) other creatures in addition to the spellcaster. Such a spell would have to explicitly create an exception if the AoE was meant to move along with the spellcaster and it would also have to explicitly create an exception if the spellcaster was meant to be unaffected by the resulting spell effect.
In 2024, we still have spherical AoE spells. But now we also have Emanation spells. Emanation spells with a Range of Self are cast at the spellcaster in order to establish a point of origin at the spellcaster's location. The resulting AoE emanates (extends in straight lines) from the spellcaster in all directions and the size of this emanation is now described in the effect block. The default for this type of AoE is that the AoE moves with the creature and the default is also that this creature is not included in this area of effect. Other creatures within this AoE are now (as per the 2024 rules) potentially considered to be targets of the spell effect.
Furthermore, the 2024 rules removed any direct tie between Point of Origin and Target,
This also is not true.
The term "target" is used in two different ways in the rules for spellcasting. The first way that it is used has to do with the selection of the point of origin during the actual spellcasting procedure, as seen in the first half-dozen or so rules within the Spells --> Casting Spells --> Effects section of the rules that were previously quoted. This is essentially the way that the term "target" was used in the 2014 rules for spellcasting. In addition, in 2024, once the spell effect has been created, certain creatures can be considered to be "targets" of that spell effect in accordance with the new rules that are detailed in the Rules Glossary for "Target".
- But if you center [a fireball spell] in empty space, the point of origin (the place "at" which you cast the spell) is not a target, because it's neither a creature nor object selected to receive effects / attacked by an attack / forced to make a save.
Well actually, the term "target" is used by the PHB to describe this exact process. But it is true that in this case no creature is being targeted by this process. It is possible to cast a Fireball spell where no creatures at all are targeted. But in that case, the point of origin for that Fireball was still a target of the spell. If it turns out that such a location cannot be targeted by the spell (due to a violation of the clear path rule, for example) then the spell cannot be cast in the intended manner.
True Strike is not an AoE. It defines a target via an attack in the spell's description. At no point does it declare the caster as a target, and at no point does it incude the caster as a target in an AoE.
The target of the attack in True Strike's spell description is not a target of the spell. If the casting of the spell resulted in making a spell attack, then that target would be a target of a spell, but it doesn't do that. Instead, that target is just a target of an attack, nothing more.
A spell does not have to use the word "target" in order for it to describe what it is targeting. You simply read and interpret the spell description to determine what the spell does and who the spell targets along the way.
The True Strike spell has a Range of Self, targets a creature ("you") and is not an AoE spell. The only place that the spell effect actually exists and does anything at all is at the spellcaster's location. The spell targets the spellcaster in order to enhance that spellcaster's attack. The spell description then goes on to restrict when and what the spellcaster may attack with that enhancement, but that resulting attack is not the spell targeting anything.
The target of the attack in True Strike's spell description is not a target of the spell. If the casting of the spell resulted in making a spell attack, then that target would be a target of a spell, but it doesn't do that. Instead, that target is just a target of an attack, nothing more.
. . .
Let's be fair here. There is a reasonable interpretation of the description of True Strike that does make the creature or object being attacked the Target of the spell, which in turn makes the attack roll a Spell Casting roll.
Yes, I know I just spent the past page and a half debating with R3sistance over this, but my position was, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, that both interpretations are reasonable and valid. It is probably inadvisable for people be making definitive statements about the Targeting for True Strike (which, ironically, I did and which I think is part of the reason that this exploded).
The RAI of Warcaster has always been that the spell you are casting is a one-for-one replacement for the Opportunity Attack you are forgoing. As such, it should only make one (1) attack roll against the creature that triggered it, or force that one (1) creature to make a saving throw -- or, in extreme high-level cases like Power Words, affects that one (1) creature with something that requires neither attack roll nor saving throw
Whether a spell like True Strike also "targets" the caster with some magical effect is completely irrelevant to this purpose, and arguing that the caster is also a "target" misses the point of Warcaster's Reactive Spell feature
This is how I would interpret how the feature works. Hopefully the GMs I play with also see it this way. If not, I might ask which spells I can cast with the feature.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
The target of the attack in True Strike's spell description is not a target of the spell. If the casting of the spell resulted in making a spell attack, then that target would be a target of a spell, but it doesn't do that. Instead, that target is just a target of an attack, nothing more.
. . .
Let's be fair here. There is a reasonable interpretation of the description of True Strike that does make the creature or object being attacked the Target of the spell, which in turn makes the attack roll a Spell Casting roll.
True Strike:
Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting.
From the Rules Glossary:
Spell Attack
A spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect. See also “Spells” (“Casting Spells”).
. . .
Weapon Attack
A weapon attack is an attack roll made with a weapon. See also “Weapon.”
From the spellcasting chapter (Spells --> Casting Spells --> Effects --> Attack Rolls):
Attack Rolls
Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell hits a target. Here’s how to calculate the attack modifier for your spells:
Spell attack modifier = your spellcasting ability modifier + your Proficiency Bonus
The target of the attack in True Strike's spell description is not a target of the spell. If the casting of the spell resulted in making a spell attack, then that target would be a target of a spell, but it doesn't do that. Instead, that target is just a target of an attack, nothing more.
. . .
Let's be fair here. There is a reasonable interpretation of the description of True Strike that does make the creature or object being attacked the Target of the spell, which in turn makes the attack roll a Spell Casting roll.
True Strike:
Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting.
From the Rules Glossary:
Spell Attack
A spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect. See also “Spells” (“Casting Spells”).
. . .
Weapon Attack
A weapon attack is an attack roll made with a weapon. See also “Weapon.”
From the spellcasting chapter (Spells --> Casting Spells --> Effects --> Attack Rolls):
Attack Rolls
Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell hits a target. Here’s how to calculate the attack modifier for your spells:
Spell attack modifier = your spellcasting ability modifier + your Proficiency Bonus
You really didn't need to post all of that. I repeatedly pointed out to R3sistance over the past few days how a very valid argument can be made that the spell does not Target the creature attacked (which would mean that the roll is not a Spell Attack roll). It seems to me that I understand your interpretation and I find it completely legitimate.
However, there is a valid argument that counters your interpretation; that the first line which you quoted is 'flavor text' as opposed to 'a rule'. This, likewise, is a completely valid interpretation.
Unless you have some way to conclusively prove it is not 'flavor text' (which, short of Word of God, is pretty much an impossibility), you can't really prove that interpretation is wrong.
Until such an unlikely event (or some similar unlikely event) occurs, the best position for us to take as a community is probably to simply accept that there are two different interpretations and neither said has any true claim that the other side is 'wrong'.
Vampiric Touch is one such other spell. It describes effect on the caster and then instructs you to make an attack of some sort. The burden is now on you, if you want to take it up.
Vampiric Touch works a bit differently. It uses the Melee Spell Attack mechanic which clearly demonstrates in that case that the spell effect is targeting the creature being attacked. Theoretically, this spell should work a lot like Shocking Grasp in that regard even though in the case of Vampiric Touch the location of the spell effect originates at the spellcaster's location. It's less clear in this case if the spell effect is also targeting the spellcaster.
True Strike on the other hand is a spell which enhances an attack instead of it being a spell which targets a creature with its spell effect. It's a bit like Shillelagh in that regard, which is also a spell that enhances something rather than it being a spell which targets a creature with its spell effect.
I don't think the type of attack matters. Vampiric Touch gives the spell caster an action during which allows them to make an attack. I do not see a difference between this and the combined casting/attack action of True Strike.
. . . I wonder if they will update the Sage Advice for Green Flame Blade and War Caster since an Opportunity Attack can trigger Cleave, should the restriction on Green Flame Blade's secondary target also be lifted?
Green Flame Blade does not qualify for the Reactive Spell feature of the War Caster feat for the same reason that True Strike doesn't. It's not a spell that is being cast at the fleeing creature. Instead, Green Flame Blade is a spell with a Range of Self. The spell is cast on an object that the spellcaster is holding at the spellcaster's location. It enhances that object (weapon).
Booming Blade has the same issues and also does not qualify for the same reasons.
Jeremy Crawford has stated that Green Flame Blade is valid with War Caster if you choose not to target a secondary creature. It did not make it into Sage Advice so it's not RAW, but it suggests that it is RAI (If it was in Sage Advice, it would be at least explicitly RAI, if not RAW).
The emanation AoE literally replaced the Range: Self (<distance>) notation. For the very reasons stated in the interview. Furthermore, the 2024 rules removed any direct tie between Point of Origin and Target, to solve the very confusion he was discussing in the interview.
If there was ever a direct tie between Point of Origin and Target, 2024 kept it and moved it.
Spells such as burning hands and cone of cold cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.
A spell's description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere. Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how you position its point of origin. Typically, a point of origin is a point in space, but some spells have an area whose origin is a creature or an object.
A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover.
In 2024, points of origin are still there. They are now an optional property of AoE Spells.
Acid Splash. "You create an acidic bubble at a point within range, where it explodes in a 5-foot-radius Sphere." The point of origin is the targeted point.
Burning Hands. "A thin sheet of flames shoots forth from you. Each creature in a 15-foot Cone ..." The point of origin of the cone is you.
[Tooltip Not Found]
Fireball. "A bright streak flashes from you to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into a fiery explosion. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius Sphere centered on that point..." The point of origin is the point you chose.
Lightning Bolt. "A stroke of lightning forming a 100-foot-long, 5-foot-wide Line blasts out from you in a direction you choose." The point of origin is you again.
Not all AoE Spells have a point of origin defined as such, and it's not always a point, per se. However, the concept is not gone from 2024; it's just no longer a core property of AoE spells.
Something being "cast at" is a vague term --- in Warcaster it can mean "point of origin" or "target." It's not defined anywhere. "Cast on" isn't either, but is more-or-less synonymous with being the point of origin. Neither term is used in a particularly load-bearing manner.
you can take a Reaction to cast a spell at the creature rather than making an Opportunity Attack. The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature.
Point of origin and target are not the same thing. "A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate", "An area of effect has a point of origin", etc. - For example, if you center a Fireball on a creature, then the creature is (more or less) both the origin and a target. (They aren't actually "are" the origin so much as overlapping it.) - Similarly, if you center the Fireball on yourself (and aren't an Evoker using Sculpt Spells to exclude yourself) then you will have targetted yourself. - But if you center it in empty space, the point of origin (the place "at" which you cast the spell) is not a target, because it's neither a creature nor object selected to receive effects / attacked by an attack / forced to make a save.
You never cast Fireball on a creature or object. You cast it on "a point you choose within range". It doesn't matter if the point is on a creature, under a creature, near a creature, the target is the point in range. If you choose a point on yourself, your target is not yourself, it's the point you chose.
True Strike is not an AoE. It defines a target via an attack in the spell's description. At no point does it declare the caster as a target, and at no point does it incude the caster as a target in an AoE.
If it's not an AoE, then the range is not Self as the source of an Emanation; it's Self as the target of the spell. That's an excellent point.
Jeremy Crawford has stated that Green Flame Blade is valid with War Caster if you choose not to target a secondary creature.
It's that kind of stuff, or the fact that you lose the ability to cast Eldritch Blast with it when you go from 4th to 5th level, that makes the RAW of Warcaster something that should be ignored, if not outright mocked, at every table
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Please let me say this;
I can completely respect agreeing to disagree. I have always maintained that your interpretation is a completely valid one. I just disagree that it is the only one.
All I ask is that you not act as though other interpretations aren't valid simply because you disagree with them (which you are kind of doing when you say 'nothing in the rules'. There is something, you just feel that certain other aspects override them, and again, that is completely reasonable for you to do, but acting as though those parts don't exist is a bit insulting, but I won't harp on that any longer) and make statements such as 'all people are doing is insisting'.
The emanation AoE literally replaced the Range: Self (<distance>) notation. For the very reasons stated in the interview. Furthermore, the 2024 rules removed any direct tie between Point of Origin and Target, to solve the very confusion he was discussing in the interview.
The interview is a blatant description of RAI (and, in fact, a pedantic explanation of RAW) for 2014. And it's obvious that that RAI was extended to 2024, as evidenced by the changed wording and the new Emanation AoE.
...
Something being "cast at" is a vague term --- in Warcaster it can mean "point of origin" or "target." It's not defined anywhere. "Cast on" isn't either, but is more-or-less synonymous with being the point of origin. Neither term is used in a particularly load-bearing manner.
Point of origin and target are not the same thing. "A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate", "An area of effect has a point of origin", etc.
- For example, if you center a Fireball on a creature, then the creature is (more or less) both the origin and a target. (They aren't actually "are" the origin so much as overlapping it.)
- Similarly, if you center the Fireball on yourself (and aren't an Evoker using Sculpt Spells to exclude yourself) then you will have targetted yourself.
- But if you center it in empty space, the point of origin (the place "at" which you cast the spell) is not a target, because it's neither a creature nor object selected to receive effects / attacked by an attack / forced to make a save.
The only way the point of origin can be a target is if the spell's description and/or the AoE rules say so.
- For example, Animal Friendship explicitly says you target a single beast within range.
True Strike is not an AoE. It defines a target via an attack in the spell's description. At no point does it declare the caster as a target, and at no point does it incude the caster as a target in an AoE.
I will agree that the RAI would appear to allow Opportunity Attack. It has never been my intention to say it hasn't. I have only been approaching this from a strict 'RAW' form.
Two things I will note: The first is that the interpretation that True Strike is only Targeting the caster does have an importance in some other edge case scenarios. The biggest one i know of is that if the spell is additionally Targeting the creature attacked then, by a strictly RAW perspective, the roll becomes a Spell Attack. This means it can receive a bonus from items such as Wand of the War Mage. This is a problem because the wording of the spell and magical weapons, by a strictly RAW perspective, means they also tend to add their bonuses and such double dipping can get a bit unbalancing.
The second thing is that I am not 100% convinced that the limit is a single attack roll. Reactive Strike does not talk about multiple rolls at all, only the valid Targets, and as long as all of those rolls are all confined to the same Target I, personally, would not take the position that the RAI only allows a single roll (This very question came up in a game I was playing last night when one of our casters wanted to use Reactive Casting with Eldritch Blast). Of course we are dealing in matters of interpretation and your mileage may vary.
I should note, despite what it might sound like, I am not a big fan of 'strict RAW'. I am much more of a fan of RAI. Primarily I focus on RAW as a counter to those people trying to find loopholes (such as arguing that they must be allowed to stack items that give bonuses to spell casting and weapons that give bonuses). Yes, I recognize that as the DM I can always just say 'No', but since that never seems to satisfy such people I always like to find out where their RAW break down. (Sure, your peasant railgun accelerates the spear to near light speed, by the RAW. Now roll your 1d6. What? You want more damage? Where in the RAW does it say that that happens?)
Actually, and just to be pedantic, the spell could be Targeting the creature and still be disallowed under the RAW if you subscribe to the interpretation that the spell also Targets the caster (because now the creature triggering the AoO is not the only one being Targeted).
And just for clarity, I don't think it violates RAI and, as I said above, I am not an advocate of strict RAW readings. I only point this out so that people can be aware of the possible arguments that might be raised.
This is not true. The Emanation in 2024 is a new concept.
In 2014, the Self (<distance>) notation referred to a spell that targeted the spellcaster in order to create a spherical AoE centered at the spellcaster's location which might potentially affect (but not target) other creatures in addition to the spellcaster. Such a spell would have to explicitly create an exception if the AoE was meant to move along with the spellcaster and it would also have to explicitly create an exception if the spellcaster was meant to be unaffected by the resulting spell effect.
In 2024, we still have spherical AoE spells. But now we also have Emanation spells. Emanation spells with a Range of Self are cast at the spellcaster in order to establish a point of origin at the spellcaster's location. The resulting AoE emanates (extends in straight lines) from the spellcaster in all directions and the size of this emanation is now described in the effect block. The default for this type of AoE is that the AoE moves with the creature and the default is also that this creature is not included in this area of effect. Other creatures within this AoE are now (as per the 2024 rules) potentially considered to be targets of the spell effect.
This also is not true.
The term "target" is used in two different ways in the rules for spellcasting. The first way that it is used has to do with the selection of the point of origin during the actual spellcasting procedure, as seen in the first half-dozen or so rules within the Spells --> Casting Spells --> Effects section of the rules that were previously quoted. This is essentially the way that the term "target" was used in the 2014 rules for spellcasting. In addition, in 2024, once the spell effect has been created, certain creatures can be considered to be "targets" of that spell effect in accordance with the new rules that are detailed in the Rules Glossary for "Target".
Well actually, the term "target" is used by the PHB to describe this exact process. But it is true that in this case no creature is being targeted by this process. It is possible to cast a Fireball spell where no creatures at all are targeted. But in that case, the point of origin for that Fireball was still a target of the spell. If it turns out that such a location cannot be targeted by the spell (due to a violation of the clear path rule, for example) then the spell cannot be cast in the intended manner.
The target of the attack in True Strike's spell description is not a target of the spell. If the casting of the spell resulted in making a spell attack, then that target would be a target of a spell, but it doesn't do that. Instead, that target is just a target of an attack, nothing more.
A spell does not have to use the word "target" in order for it to describe what it is targeting. You simply read and interpret the spell description to determine what the spell does and who the spell targets along the way.
The True Strike spell has a Range of Self, targets a creature ("you") and is not an AoE spell. The only place that the spell effect actually exists and does anything at all is at the spellcaster's location. The spell targets the spellcaster in order to enhance that spellcaster's attack. The spell description then goes on to restrict when and what the spellcaster may attack with that enhancement, but that resulting attack is not the spell targeting anything.
Let's be fair here. There is a reasonable interpretation of the description of True Strike that does make the creature or object being attacked the Target of the spell, which in turn makes the attack roll a Spell Casting roll.
Yes, I know I just spent the past page and a half debating with R3sistance over this, but my position was, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, that both interpretations are reasonable and valid. It is probably inadvisable for people be making definitive statements about the Targeting for True Strike (which, ironically, I did and which I think is part of the reason that this exploded).
This is how I would interpret how the feature works. Hopefully the GMs I play with also see it this way. If not, I might ask which spells I can cast with the feature.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
True Strike:
From the Rules Glossary:
From the spellcasting chapter (Spells --> Casting Spells --> Effects --> Attack Rolls):
You really didn't need to post all of that. I repeatedly pointed out to R3sistance over the past few days how a very valid argument can be made that the spell does not Target the creature attacked (which would mean that the roll is not a Spell Attack roll). It seems to me that I understand your interpretation and I find it completely legitimate.
However, there is a valid argument that counters your interpretation; that the first line which you quoted is 'flavor text' as opposed to 'a rule'. This, likewise, is a completely valid interpretation.
Unless you have some way to conclusively prove it is not 'flavor text' (which, short of Word of God, is pretty much an impossibility), you can't really prove that interpretation is wrong.
Until such an unlikely event (or some similar unlikely event) occurs, the best position for us to take as a community is probably to simply accept that there are two different interpretations and neither said has any true claim that the other side is 'wrong'.
I don't think the type of attack matters. Vampiric Touch gives the spell caster an action during which allows them to make an attack. I do not see a difference between this and the combined casting/attack action of True Strike.
Jeremy Crawford has stated that Green Flame Blade is valid with War Caster if you choose not to target a secondary creature. It did not make it into Sage Advice so it's not RAW, but it suggests that it is RAI (If it was in Sage Advice, it would be at least explicitly RAI, if not RAW).
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
If there was ever a direct tie between Point of Origin and Target, 2024 kept it and moved it.
In 2024, points of origin are still there. They are now an optional property of AoE Spells.
Not all AoE Spells have a point of origin defined as such, and it's not always a point, per se. However, the concept is not gone from 2024; it's just no longer a core property of AoE spells.
That's pretty well defined.
You never cast Fireball on a creature or object. You cast it on "a point you choose within range". It doesn't matter if the point is on a creature, under a creature, near a creature, the target is the point in range. If you choose a point on yourself, your target is not yourself, it's the point you chose.
If it's not an AoE, then the range is not Self as the source of an Emanation; it's Self as the target of the spell. That's an excellent point.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
It's that kind of stuff, or the fact that you lose the ability to cast Eldritch Blast with it when you go from 4th to 5th level, that makes the RAW of Warcaster something that should be ignored, if not outright mocked, at every table
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)