Nowhere does True Strike define the caster as the target. "Self" is the Range, which defines where the effect "originates." The target is the target of the attack.
Targets
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.
Both the caster and the creature being attacked are "affected" by the spell's magic.
Yes, both are affected, but the definition of Target does not say that everything affected by the spell's magic is a Target. It only says that any Target is affected.
This is similar to how 'Salmon are fish, but not all fish are salmon' (Targets are affected, but not all affected are Targets).
e.g., If I cast Wall of Thorns a lot of people may be affected (because their line of sight is now blocked) without being the actual targets of the spell.
To be clear, I am not saying that this settles the True Strike argument and there is now a clear and definitive answer (that the person being attacked is definitely not a Target of the spell). I am saying that your argument does not prove that they person being attacked must be the Target of the spell, leaving the issue contentious.
To be clear, I am not saying that this settles the True Strike argument and there is now a clear and definitive answer (that the person being attacked is definitely not a Target of the spell). I am saying that your argument does not prove that they person being attacked must be the Target of the spell, leaving the issue contentious.
I think you may have completely missed what my argument was then. The creature being attacked is absolutely, 100 percent a target of True Strike. You can't make an attack without a target
My point is that the term 'target' has multiple meanings within the rules. The creature being attacked by the weapon used in True Strike is a target, in one sense. The creature casting True Strike is also a target, in a different sense
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 be clear, I am not saying that this settles the True Strike argument and there is now a clear and definitive answer (that the person being attacked is definitely not a Target of the spell). I am saying that your argument does not prove that they person being attacked must be the Target of the spell, leaving the issue contentious.
. . .The creature being attacked is absolutely, 100 percent a target of True Strike. You can't make an attack without a target.
No, the creature being attacked is not absolutely 100 percent a Target of True Strike (again, I am not maintain it cannot be a Target of True Strike, merely that it is not an absolute and inviolable fact). The Target could very well be the caster, depending on your interpretation since the description of the spell is unclear (due to it never explicitly stating who the Target is).
Yes, the creature being attacked is A Target, but that does not mandate that they are the Target of True Strike itself. They are merely the Target of the attack that follows the spell.
Look at the Antagonize spell. The Target of the spell is the creature the Spell is cast on, not the one that creature then attacks. The second creature is a Target as well, but it is the Target of an attack, not of the spell.
Yes, I recognize there are differences, such as the requirement that the creature expend a Reaction and the fact that the first creature takes damage, but there is also a great deal of similarity between the two. Remove damage and the fact that a Reaction is required, add that the creature it is cast on can now do Radiant damage and uses the casters spell casting ability for a bonus and you basically have True Strike, one that can be used to allow someone other than the caster to make the attack.
n.b., if you want to state that the second creature is also a Target of the Antagonize spell, I can respect that position and would certainly agree that your feeling about True Strike and its Targets remains consistent, but I would not agree with you. This isn't meant to be a statement of 'right or wrong'. We would simply be at an impasse in our interpretations. The only thing that would really remove that impasse would be if you could locate something that conclusively convinced me that the second creature was, in fact, a Target of the spell (e.g., a statement in the rules indicating that anyone who is affected in any way, even indirectly, by the casting of a spell is considered a Target for the spell).
My point is that the term 'target' has multiple meanings within the rules. The creature being attacked by the weapon used in True Strike is a target, in one sense. The creature casting True Strike is also a target, in a different sense
I'm not trying to say that there's no ambiguity (though, there wouldn't be if Warcaster were changed to not rely on target-counting, like how Twinned Spell was changed to not rely on target counting).
But, if you read "A bright streak flashes from you to a point you choose within range and then..." in the description of Fireball, do you think it could be construed as saying that the caster is also a target (since the spell is making them choose a point)? What about the legacy version: "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range..." The spell has you point, after all...
That's rhetorical, of course, but I don't think you're ever supposed to be guessing as to what's the target. The description will call out targets explicitly, if they are not already specified by attacks or saving throws.
My point is that the term 'target' has multiple meanings within the rules. The creature being attacked by the weapon used in True Strike is a target, in one sense. The creature casting True Strike is also a target, in a different sense
I'm not trying to say that there's no ambiguity (though, there wouldn't be if Warcaster were changed to not rely on target-counting, like how Twinned Spell was changed to not rely on target counting).
But, if you read "A bright streak flashes from you to a point you choose within range and then..." in the description of Fireball, do you think it could be construed as saying that the caster is also a target (since the spell is making them choose a point)? What about the legacy version: "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range..." The spell has you point, after all...
That's rhetorical, of course, but I don't think you're ever supposed to be guessing as to what's the target. The description will call out targets explicitly, if they are not already specified by attacks or saving throws.
I wouldn't think that because it says that the effect streaks from you to a point. The point is then the Target (along with the critters inside the radius). True Strike on the other hand says "Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon". That doesn't sound to me like the spell going anywhere but the caster.
I do agree that you should never be guessing as to what's the target. To me, however, that simply means they failed on that point when they wrote the spell. It does not mean that you must come to the conclusion that the creature being attacked is the Target of the spell (again, Antagonize is a good example where a creature being attacked because of a spell does not appear to be the Target of the spell).
(and to reiterate for clarity, I am not saying your interpretation is automatically wrong. I am saying it is not definitively correct and the caster being the Target of the spell is a reasonable interpretation)
I wouldn't think that because it says that the effect streaks from you to a point. The point is then the Target (along with the critters inside the radius). True Strike on the other hand says "Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon". That doesn't sound to me like the spell going anywhere but the caster.
Ironically, the point isn't a target at all; it's the point of origin ("a location from which the effect’s energy erupts" from the AoE glossary entry). If there happens to be a creature or object right there, that thing will count as one of the targets.
Target is also defined in the glossary: "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." In True Strike, the caster is never targetted nor selected; they are just the source of the spell (implicitly, it's emanating from them, but the emanation is entirely a weapon attack). They're not just using "target" in a common language sense here, and put "Target" in the glossary to cover its definition.
Which is all pedantry, of course. This only requires pedantry to counter other pedantry. As stated above:
Remove damage and the fact that a Reaction is required
Yes, if you change the things that make spells different, they can become very much the same. fireball is basically just mass cure wounds with one little tweak
In the case of antagonize, or something like crown of madness, I would actually allow them to be used with Warcaster, but not because they have only a single target. The spells do have second targets, since the caster is choosing who gets those melee attacks, but the second targets only come into it on a different step in the action economy and aren't part of the initial casting action. If we're playing the "same but different" game, that's similar to vampiric touch, which has one initial target and takes one action to cast -- you can just attack a different target on a later action if you maintain concentration on it
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)
Target is also defined in the glossary: "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." In True Strike, the caster is never targetted nor selected; they are just the source of the spell (implicitly, it's emanating from them, but the emanation is entirely a weapon attack). They're not just using "target" in a common language sense here, and put "Target" in the glossary to cover its definition.
Whereas I would say being allowed to make the attack using a different ability modifier (casting stat instead of STR or DEX) very much means the caster is receiving the effects of the spell, thus making the caster a target as well
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)
I wouldn't think that because it says that the effect streaks from you to a point. The point is then the Target (along with the critters inside the radius). True Strike on the other hand says "Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon". That doesn't sound to me like the spell going anywhere but the caster.
Ironically, the point isn't a target at all; it's the point of origin ("a location from which the effect’s energy erupts" from the AoE glossary entry). If there happens to be a creature or object right there, that thing will count as one of the targets.
Target is also defined in the glossary: "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." In True Strike, the caster is never targetted nor selected; they are just the source of the spell (implicitly, it's emanating from them, but the emanation is entirely a weapon attack). They're not just using "target" in a common language sense here, and put "Target" in the glossary to cover its definition.
Which is all pedantry, of course. This only requires pedantry to counter other pedantry. As stated above:
It's a silly argument, because Warcaster is clearly using only one specific definition of 'target' -- the one that refers to the target of an attack
The glossary definition does not definitively show that the caster is not the Target of True Strike. They could very easily be the thing "selected to receive the effects of a spell", said effect being that they now make a weapon attack that may do Radiant damage and which uses the spellcaster's (their) spellcasting bonus in place of Strength or Dexterity (much as the Target of Antagonize spends any available Reaction to make a weapon attack against a Target of the caster's choosing).
So no, there is nothing that conclusively shows that the caster is never targeted or selected. That is an assumption being made.
(And again, for clarity, I am not maintaining that the caster must be the Target of True Strike; merely that it is a reasonable interpretation, one which may not agree with yours).
(And again, for clarity, I am not maintaining that the caster must be the Target of True Strike; merely that it is a reasonable interpretation, one which may not agree with yours).
This is what I'm trying to get at, though: I think the glossary definition means that targets must be positively identified. You are correct that the text of True Strike does not prove that the caster isn't a target; but the burden of proof lies with demonstrating that something is a target.
Basically all spells say something about magic flowing through or from the caster, or the caster doing stuff which could maybe be construed as "being affected." All spells have a point of origin that must be within range. In a "positive identification" sense, the thing/point/whatever you "cast the spell on" is the point of origin, and only a target if the spells actually says so. "Guided by a flash of magical insight" doesn't cut it for me.
And again, it shouldn't matter; Warcaster is (I think) the only remaining thing putting weight on the particulars of targetting like this, and "common sense" makes Warcaster pretty easy to understand ("no fireballs, lightning, etc"). If the spell had a "Target(s): the target of the weapon attack" entry then there'd be no doubt, but as it stands, I think the Target definition already indicates how to resolve doubt.
Remove damage and the fact that a Reaction is required
. . .In the case of antagonize, or something like crown of madness, I would actually allow them to be used with Warcaster, but not because they have only a single target. The spells do have second targets, since the caster is choosing who gets those melee attacks, but the second targets only come into it on a different step in the action economy and aren't part of the initial casting action. . .
To be clear, I am not going to say 'you can't do that'. It's your game and you are free to modify rules as you see fit, especially when you think that you are working within RAI rather than RAW.
However, if you honestly believe that the creatures being attacked by the initial Target are also 'Targets of the spell' then you shouldn't allow it, in a strictly RAW sense. Likewise, making an attack with Vampiric Touch against any Target after the first should cause the spell to fizzle (unless you take the position that Vampiric Touch has the caster as Target and is granting them the ability to make the attacks). Reactive Spell is pretty clear that the spell can only Target a single creature. It does not give an exception for action economy. Allowing it means there is an inconsistency.
This isn't a criticism. There are times when inconsistencies should creep in to preserve enjoyment and balance. Another example of an inconsistency that probably should be allowed would be if you interpret True Strike as targeting the creature attacked, you probably should not allow items that offer spell casting bonuses (since he spell Targets the creature the attack roll is now automatically a Spell Attack) to stack on top of any bonuses a weapon may have (because the bonus for magic weapons say they occur whenever you make an attack with that weapon) because that could unbalance things rather badly.
It is simply an observation meant to illustrate why trying to dig too deeply into 'these are exact definitions' aren't always the best thing for the game (while being necessary for discussions of the rules)
Reactive Spell is pretty clear that the spell can only Target a single creature.
Target in what sense?
If you're not going to pay attention to what I'm saying, I'm not sure why I would keep responding
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)
Just because I disagree with you does not mean I am not paying attention to what you are saying. It means I am unconvinced of your argument (and I have explained why. None of your arguments mandate the conclusion that you have come to, just as my own arguments do not mandate that True Strike must Target the caster. Both sets of arguments simply create the possibility that they are correct).
Target in the sense of 'The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature.' If you feel that Antagonize, Crown of Madness, or Vampiric Touch target creatures other than the one that prompted the Attack of Opportunity then, by RAW, you should not allow the use of the Reactive Spell ability of the War Caster feat to cast those spells (for clarity, I am also saying there is nothing wrong with allowing such an inconsistency and bending the RAW there if it makes the game more enjoyable for everyone. You should just recognize that you are creating it).
(And again, for clarity, I am not maintaining that the caster must be the Target of True Strike; merely that it is a reasonable interpretation, one which may not agree with yours).
This is what I'm trying to get at, though: I think the glossary definition means that targets must be positively identified. You are correct that the text of True Strike does not prove that the caster isn't a target; but the burden of proof lies with demonstrating that something is a target.
Basically all spells say something about magic flowing through or from the caster, or the caster doing stuff which could maybe be construed as "being affected." All spells have a point of origin that must be within range. In a "positive identification" sense, the thing/point/whatever you "cast the spell on" is the point of origin, and only a target if the spells actually says so. "Guided by a flash of magical insight" doesn't cut it for me.
And again, it shouldn't matter; Warcaster is (I think) the only remaining thing putting weight on the particulars of targetting like this, and "common sense" makes Warcaster pretty easy to understand ("no fireballs, lightning, etc"). If the spell had a "Target(s): the target of the weapon attack" entry then there'd be no doubt, but as it stands, I think the Target definition already indicates how to resolve doubt.
This is not true.
Dominate Person says that the target is charmed and can be commanded to make an attack. No mention of "magic flowing throuhgh or from the caster".
True Strike says that the caster is guided by insight and makes an attack.
Vampiric Touch says the caster's hands are shadow wreathed and they can make an attack when the spell is cast and gives you the ability to make that attack (on the same or different creatures) for the duration.
You make the assumption that "magic flowing through or from the caster" can automatically be written off as unimportant. It's not. It describes the effect on the caster in the case of Vampiric Touch and True Strike. True Strike is instantaneous while Vampiric Touch has a duration.
If a spell causing a creature to make an attack results in the target of the attack being a target of the spell, then True Strike, Dominate Person (where the dominated is commanded to attack another creature), and Vampiric Touch target the creatures attacked.
If the spell describing an effect on a creature results in that creature being a target, then True Strike and Vampiric Touch target the caster and Dominate Person targets the dominated creature.
You have presented your opinion on what the rules are. That I disagree with your stance doesn't invalidate your position and your disagreement doesn't invalidate mine.
Cast True Strike on yourself (just to be pedantic, you are the Target of the spell, not the weapon) and make an attack with it.
The truly pedantic answer is that you are the point of origin ("A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate"), not the target. The target is whatever the attack targets.
The super-duper pedantic answer is that the word 'target' has multiple meanings within the rules, and two of them are in play when discussing True Strike. The caster is the target of the spell, while another creature is the target of the attack the spell enables
But in reality, you can't tell what the spell targets without reading the Effect of a spell, because not all "Range: Self" spells target you. Good examples of this are Scrying and Eyebite.
In the case of both Scrying and Eyebite, the spellcaster is the target of the spell both in the sense that the spellcaster is selected as the point of origin for the effect and also in the sense that the spell effect imbues the spellcaster with a special ability.
In both cases, the spell description also specifies that another creature of your choice within a different range (specified within the effect's description) is also affected by the spell effect in a different way -- the spell effect compels that creature to make a save and thus that creature is also considered to be a target of the spell under the 2024 ruleset.
Many divination spells work like this -- they have a range of self and are cast onto the spellcaster which imbues the spellcaster with a special ability. The spellcaster is the target of such spells.
(For anyone else who might be confused why this argument happens: the Reactive Spell feature of the Warcaster feat specificies that a spell "must target only that creature" to be used as an AoO. Some people are very convinced that True Strike and other cantrips like Booming Blade are somehow ineligible for this because they have a Range of "self." This is a misreading of the range rules and the spell target rules.)
Remember, the Reactive Spell feature of the War Caster feat has multiple requirements for the spell that is being cast. Yes, the provoking creature must be the only target of the spell. But also, the spell must be cast AT that creature. In all cases where the spell has a Range of Self the spell is being cast "at" the spellcaster. Therefore, these are never eligible to be used by the Reactive Spell feature. That includes True Strike.
Ironically, the point isn't a target at all; it's the point of origin ("a location from which the effect’s energy erupts" from the AoE glossary entry). If there happens to be a creature or object right there, that thing will count as one of the targets.
The point of origin (for AoE spells and also for non-AoE spells) is always the target of the spell during the spellcasting because the process of choosing the point of origin is precisely the spellcaster "[selecting something or someplace] to receive the effects of a spell". There are several rules within the Spells --> Casting Spells --> Effects section of the rules which clearly demonstrate this usage of the term "target" as it relates to spellcasting concepts.
In 2024, with the expanded definition of the term "target", there may also be other targets of a spell after it is cast.
First off, let's be clear about what a Target (BR) is
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.
So let's be clear, when it comes to spellcasting, what is the Target (BR)?
Targets
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.
Here there is a quick and easy definition of where the target of a spell is described. Well here is the problem with True Strike, there is NO target mentioned in the description.
Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon 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).
you could claim it says you make an attack with the weapon means you're the target, but this same logic would prevent MANY spells working from war caster, including fire bolt.
You hurl a mote of fire at a creature or an object within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 Fire damage. A flammable object hit by this spell starts burning if it isn’t being worn or carried.
You performing an action (in this case hurling a mote of fire) does not invalidate this spell from war caster's reactive strike, just like making a weapon attack from true strike does not. But then what is the target of True Strike, well as a part of True Strike you perform a weapon attack, the target of that attack is the actual target since " 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."
Nowhere in the rules does it state that the 'Range/Area' defines the target, in fact what Range (BR) does say is...
A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate, and the spell’s description specifies which part of the effect is limited by the range.
A range usually takes one of the following forms:
Distance. The range is expressed in feet.
Touch. The spell’s effect originates on something, as defined by the spell, that the spellcaster must touch within their reach.
Self. The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them, as specified in the spell.
If a spell has movable effects, they aren’t restricted by its range unless the spell’s description says otherwise.
Notably nothing here says that a range of self means that you are the target of the spell, I do not know where people have gotten this idea from but it's not RAW.
---- Old advice (2014)
I think it's worth noting that with regards to war caster, Jeremy Crawford specified that booming blade and green flame-blade can be used with it (for the 2014 version)
[...] Nowhere in the rules does it state that the 'Range/Area' defines the target, in fact what Range (BR) does say is...
A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate, and the spell’s description specifies which part of the effect is limited by the range.
A range usually takes one of the following forms:
Distance. The range is expressed in feet.
Touch. The spell’s effect originates on something, as defined by the spell, that the spellcaster must touch within their reach.
Self. The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them, as specified in the spell.
If a spell has movable effects, they aren’t restricted by its range unless the spell’s description says otherwise.
Notably nothing here says that a range of self means that you are the target of the spell, I do not know where people have gotten this idea from but it's not RAW. [...]
I don't know, mate, but I agree with your explanations. I tried too, but as you can see, not everybody agrees.
[...] Nowhere in the rules does it state that the 'Range/Area' defines the target, in fact what Range (BR) does say is...
A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate, and the spell’s description specifies which part of the effect is limited by the range.
A range usually takes one of the following forms:
Distance. The range is expressed in feet.
Touch. The spell’s effect originates on something, as defined by the spell, that the spellcaster must touch within their reach.
Self. The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them, as specified in the spell.
If a spell has movable effects, they aren’t restricted by its range unless the spell’s description says otherwise.
Notably nothing here says that a range of self means that you are the target of the spell, I do not know where people have gotten this idea from but it's not RAW. [...]
I don't know, mate, but I agree with your explanations. I tried too, but as you can see, not everybody agrees.
yes, because people are trying to conflate the meaning of target, which is well defined, one of the few things in 2024 I would say that is.
Generic:
1. targeted by an attack roll
2. makes a saving throw
3. selected as per the description of a spell or phenomena
Spellcasting:
1. as defined by the definition of the spell
True Strike: does not define any target, however it creates an attack roll against a creature. So clearly rule 1 of Generic is the only target of True Strike. Anybody who does not believe this to be true needs to show where in the rules it isn't, just insisting it is not the case is not enough when we have clear written RAW that describes how targeting works in this instance.
3. selected as per the description of a spell or phenomena
Spellcasting:
1. as defined by the definition of the spell
True Strike: does not define any target, however it creates an attack roll against a creature. So clearly rule 1 of Generic is the only target of True Strike. Anybody who does not believe this to be true needs to show where in the rules it isn't, just insisting it is not the case is not enough when we have clear written RAW that describes how targeting works in this instance.
That is not clear, because it could be Rule 3 (selected as per the description of a spell or phenomena). As per description does not mean 'the word 'Target' must be used in the description.
This doesn't mean the Target of True Strike must be defined by Rule 3, just that it could be. This is why the issue is contentious.
This has been shown many, many times. You can say 'I don't believe that the description is suppose to indicate that', and that is fine. I'm certainly not demanding you interpret it that way. For all I know it is my interpretation that is wrong.
However, please do not say '[a]nybody who does not believe this to be true needs to show where in the rules it isn't'. It has been shown, repeatedly. Not accepting what is shown is not the same as something not being shown.
That is not clear, because it could be Rule 3 (selected as per the description of a spell or phenomena). As per description does not mean 'the word 'Target' must be used in the description.
This doesn't mean the Target of True Strike must be defined by Rule 3, just that it could be. This is why the issue is contentious.
It's very clear, since Rule 3 literally leads to rule 1 of spellcasting, Rule 3 specifies a target must be selected and when we review that from the spellcasting side, spellcasting says that a target is defined in the description, yet True Strike defines no target in it's description. Looking for a target, what we see in True Strike is there is an attack roll and Generic rule 1. is being the target of an attack roll. This is all very clear.
However, please do not say '[a]nybody who does not believe this to be true needs to show where in the rules it isn't'. It has been shown, repeatedly. Not accepting what is shown is not the same as something not being shown.
no it hasn't, it's just people insisting that there are other targets past What the rules glossary says and what spells says. Can you point to anywhere in the rules beyond this that would be at all relevant to the casting of True Strike? Not just insistence, but actual rules as written that anything past these sections would define another target.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes, both are affected, but the definition of Target does not say that everything affected by the spell's magic is a Target. It only says that any Target is affected.
This is similar to how 'Salmon are fish, but not all fish are salmon' (Targets are affected, but not all affected are Targets).
e.g., If I cast Wall of Thorns a lot of people may be affected (because their line of sight is now blocked) without being the actual targets of the spell.
To be clear, I am not saying that this settles the True Strike argument and there is now a clear and definitive answer (that the person being attacked is definitely not a Target of the spell). I am saying that your argument does not prove that they person being attacked must be the Target of the spell, leaving the issue contentious.
I think you may have completely missed what my argument was then. The creature being attacked is absolutely, 100 percent a target of True Strike. You can't make an attack without a target
My point is that the term 'target' has multiple meanings within the rules. The creature being attacked by the weapon used in True Strike is a target, in one sense. The creature casting True Strike is also a target, in a different sense
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)
No, the creature being attacked is not absolutely 100 percent a Target of True Strike (again, I am not maintain it cannot be a Target of True Strike, merely that it is not an absolute and inviolable fact). The Target could very well be the caster, depending on your interpretation since the description of the spell is unclear (due to it never explicitly stating who the Target is).
Yes, the creature being attacked is A Target, but that does not mandate that they are the Target of True Strike itself. They are merely the Target of the attack that follows the spell.
Look at the Antagonize spell. The Target of the spell is the creature the Spell is cast on, not the one that creature then attacks. The second creature is a Target as well, but it is the Target of an attack, not of the spell.
Yes, I recognize there are differences, such as the requirement that the creature expend a Reaction and the fact that the first creature takes damage, but there is also a great deal of similarity between the two. Remove damage and the fact that a Reaction is required, add that the creature it is cast on can now do Radiant damage and uses the casters spell casting ability for a bonus and you basically have True Strike, one that can be used to allow someone other than the caster to make the attack.
n.b., if you want to state that the second creature is also a Target of the Antagonize spell, I can respect that position and would certainly agree that your feeling about True Strike and its Targets remains consistent, but I would not agree with you. This isn't meant to be a statement of 'right or wrong'. We would simply be at an impasse in our interpretations. The only thing that would really remove that impasse would be if you could locate something that conclusively convinced me that the second creature was, in fact, a Target of the spell (e.g., a statement in the rules indicating that anyone who is affected in any way, even indirectly, by the casting of a spell is considered a Target for the spell).
I'm not trying to say that there's no ambiguity (though, there wouldn't be if Warcaster were changed to not rely on target-counting, like how Twinned Spell was changed to not rely on target counting).
But, if you read "A bright streak flashes from you to a point you choose within range and then..." in the description of Fireball, do you think it could be construed as saying that the caster is also a target (since the spell is making them choose a point)? What about the legacy version: "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range..." The spell has you point, after all...
That's rhetorical, of course, but I don't think you're ever supposed to be guessing as to what's the target. The description will call out targets explicitly, if they are not already specified by attacks or saving throws.
I wouldn't think that because it says that the effect streaks from you to a point. The point is then the Target (along with the critters inside the radius). True Strike on the other hand says "Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon". That doesn't sound to me like the spell going anywhere but the caster.
I do agree that you should never be guessing as to what's the target. To me, however, that simply means they failed on that point when they wrote the spell. It does not mean that you must come to the conclusion that the creature being attacked is the Target of the spell (again, Antagonize is a good example where a creature being attacked because of a spell does not appear to be the Target of the spell).
(and to reiterate for clarity, I am not saying your interpretation is automatically wrong. I am saying it is not definitively correct and the caster being the Target of the spell is a reasonable interpretation)
Ironically, the point isn't a target at all; it's the point of origin ("a location from which the effect’s energy erupts" from the AoE glossary entry). If there happens to be a creature or object right there, that thing will count as one of the targets.
Target is also defined in the glossary: "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." In True Strike, the caster is never targetted nor selected; they are just the source of the spell (implicitly, it's emanating from them, but the emanation is entirely a weapon attack). They're not just using "target" in a common language sense here, and put "Target" in the glossary to cover its definition.
Which is all pedantry, of course. This only requires pedantry to counter other pedantry. As stated above:
Yes, if you change the things that make spells different, they can become very much the same. fireball is basically just mass cure wounds with one little tweak
In the case of antagonize, or something like crown of madness, I would actually allow them to be used with Warcaster, but not because they have only a single target. The spells do have second targets, since the caster is choosing who gets those melee attacks, but the second targets only come into it on a different step in the action economy and aren't part of the initial casting action. If we're playing the "same but different" game, that's similar to vampiric touch, which has one initial target and takes one action to cast -- you can just attack a different target on a later action if you maintain concentration on it
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)
Whereas I would say being allowed to make the attack using a different ability modifier (casting stat instead of STR or DEX) very much means the caster is receiving the effects of the spell, thus making the caster a target as well
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)
The glossary definition does not definitively show that the caster is not the Target of True Strike. They could very easily be the thing "selected to receive the effects of a spell", said effect being that they now make a weapon attack that may do Radiant damage and which uses the spellcaster's (their) spellcasting bonus in place of Strength or Dexterity (much as the Target of Antagonize spends any available Reaction to make a weapon attack against a Target of the caster's choosing).
So no, there is nothing that conclusively shows that the caster is never targeted or selected. That is an assumption being made.
(And again, for clarity, I am not maintaining that the caster must be the Target of True Strike; merely that it is a reasonable interpretation, one which may not agree with yours).
This is what I'm trying to get at, though: I think the glossary definition means that targets must be positively identified. You are correct that the text of True Strike does not prove that the caster isn't a target; but the burden of proof lies with demonstrating that something is a target.
Basically all spells say something about magic flowing through or from the caster, or the caster doing stuff which could maybe be construed as "being affected." All spells have a point of origin that must be within range. In a "positive identification" sense, the thing/point/whatever you "cast the spell on" is the point of origin, and only a target if the spells actually says so. "Guided by a flash of magical insight" doesn't cut it for me.
And again, it shouldn't matter; Warcaster is (I think) the only remaining thing putting weight on the particulars of targetting like this, and "common sense" makes Warcaster pretty easy to understand ("no fireballs, lightning, etc"). If the spell had a "Target(s): the target of the weapon attack" entry then there'd be no doubt, but as it stands, I think the Target definition already indicates how to resolve doubt.
To be clear, I am not going to say 'you can't do that'. It's your game and you are free to modify rules as you see fit, especially when you think that you are working within RAI rather than RAW.
However, if you honestly believe that the creatures being attacked by the initial Target are also 'Targets of the spell' then you shouldn't allow it, in a strictly RAW sense. Likewise, making an attack with Vampiric Touch against any Target after the first should cause the spell to fizzle (unless you take the position that Vampiric Touch has the caster as Target and is granting them the ability to make the attacks). Reactive Spell is pretty clear that the spell can only Target a single creature. It does not give an exception for action economy. Allowing it means there is an inconsistency.
This isn't a criticism. There are times when inconsistencies should creep in to preserve enjoyment and balance. Another example of an inconsistency that probably should be allowed would be if you interpret True Strike as targeting the creature attacked, you probably should not allow items that offer spell casting bonuses (since he spell Targets the creature the attack roll is now automatically a Spell Attack) to stack on top of any bonuses a weapon may have (because the bonus for magic weapons say they occur whenever you make an attack with that weapon) because that could unbalance things rather badly.
It is simply an observation meant to illustrate why trying to dig too deeply into 'these are exact definitions' aren't always the best thing for the game (while being necessary for discussions of the rules)
Target in what sense?
If you're not going to pay attention to what I'm saying, I'm not sure why I would keep responding
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)
Just because I disagree with you does not mean I am not paying attention to what you are saying. It means I am unconvinced of your argument (and I have explained why. None of your arguments mandate the conclusion that you have come to, just as my own arguments do not mandate that True Strike must Target the caster. Both sets of arguments simply create the possibility that they are correct).
Target in the sense of 'The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature.' If you feel that Antagonize, Crown of Madness, or Vampiric Touch target creatures other than the one that prompted the Attack of Opportunity then, by RAW, you should not allow the use of the Reactive Spell ability of the War Caster feat to cast those spells (for clarity, I am also saying there is nothing wrong with allowing such an inconsistency and bending the RAW there if it makes the game more enjoyable for everyone. You should just recognize that you are creating it).
First, I think the OP's question has been answered and this tangent has mostly been hashed out in Is the attack from True Strike both a Weapon and Spell Attack ?
That said,
This is not true.
You make the assumption that "magic flowing through or from the caster" can automatically be written off as unimportant. It's not. It describes the effect on the caster in the case of Vampiric Touch and True Strike. True Strike is instantaneous while Vampiric Touch has a duration.
You have presented your opinion on what the rules are. That I disagree with your stance doesn't invalidate your position and your disagreement doesn't invalidate mine.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
^ This is the correct answer.
In the case of both Scrying and Eyebite, the spellcaster is the target of the spell both in the sense that the spellcaster is selected as the point of origin for the effect and also in the sense that the spell effect imbues the spellcaster with a special ability.
In both cases, the spell description also specifies that another creature of your choice within a different range (specified within the effect's description) is also affected by the spell effect in a different way -- the spell effect compels that creature to make a save and thus that creature is also considered to be a target of the spell under the 2024 ruleset.
Many divination spells work like this -- they have a range of self and are cast onto the spellcaster which imbues the spellcaster with a special ability. The spellcaster is the target of such spells.
Remember, the Reactive Spell feature of the War Caster feat has multiple requirements for the spell that is being cast. Yes, the provoking creature must be the only target of the spell. But also, the spell must be cast AT that creature. In all cases where the spell has a Range of Self the spell is being cast "at" the spellcaster. Therefore, these are never eligible to be used by the Reactive Spell feature. That includes True Strike.
The point of origin (for AoE spells and also for non-AoE spells) is always the target of the spell during the spellcasting because the process of choosing the point of origin is precisely the spellcaster "[selecting something or someplace] to receive the effects of a spell". There are several rules within the Spells --> Casting Spells --> Effects section of the rules which clearly demonstrate this usage of the term "target" as it relates to spellcasting concepts.
In 2024, with the expanded definition of the term "target", there may also be other targets of a spell after it is cast.
First off, let's be clear about what a Target (BR) is
So let's be clear, when it comes to spellcasting, what is the Target (BR)?
Here there is a quick and easy definition of where the target of a spell is described. Well here is the problem with True Strike, there is NO target mentioned in the description.
you could claim it says you make an attack with the weapon means you're the target, but this same logic would prevent MANY spells working from war caster, including fire bolt.
You performing an action (in this case hurling a mote of fire) does not invalidate this spell from war caster's reactive strike, just like making a weapon attack from true strike does not. But then what is the target of True Strike, well as a part of True Strike you perform a weapon attack, the target of that attack is the actual target since " 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."
Nowhere in the rules does it state that the 'Range/Area' defines the target, in fact what Range (BR) does say is...
Notably nothing here says that a range of self means that you are the target of the spell, I do not know where people have gotten this idea from but it's not RAW.
---- Old advice (2014)
I think it's worth noting that with regards to war caster, Jeremy Crawford specified that booming blade and green flame-blade can be used with it (for the 2014 version)
https://www.sageadvice.eu/the-booming-blade-spell-continues-to-work-with-the-war-caster-feat/
I see no reason this would have changed in 2024, and True Strike is basically working the same way.
I don't know, mate, but I agree with your explanations. I tried too, but as you can see, not everybody agrees.
yes, because people are trying to conflate the meaning of target, which is well defined, one of the few things in 2024 I would say that is.
Generic:
1. targeted by an attack roll
2. makes a saving throw
3. selected as per the description of a spell or phenomena
Spellcasting:
1. as defined by the definition of the spell
True Strike: does not define any target, however it creates an attack roll against a creature. So clearly rule 1 of Generic is the only target of True Strike. Anybody who does not believe this to be true needs to show where in the rules it isn't, just insisting it is not the case is not enough when we have clear written RAW that describes how targeting works in this instance.
That is not clear, because it could be Rule 3 (selected as per the description of a spell or phenomena). As per description does not mean 'the word 'Target' must be used in the description.
This doesn't mean the Target of True Strike must be defined by Rule 3, just that it could be. This is why the issue is contentious.
This has been shown many, many times. You can say 'I don't believe that the description is suppose to indicate that', and that is fine. I'm certainly not demanding you interpret it that way. For all I know it is my interpretation that is wrong.
However, please do not say '[a]nybody who does not believe this to be true needs to show where in the rules it isn't'. It has been shown, repeatedly. Not accepting what is shown is not the same as something not being shown.
It's very clear, since Rule 3 literally leads to rule 1 of spellcasting, Rule 3 specifies a target must be selected and when we review that from the spellcasting side, spellcasting says that a target is defined in the description, yet True Strike defines no target in it's description. Looking for a target, what we see in True Strike is there is an attack roll and Generic rule 1. is being the target of an attack roll. This is all very clear.
no it hasn't, it's just people insisting that there are other targets past What the rules glossary says and what spells says. Can you point to anywhere in the rules beyond this that would be at all relevant to the casting of True Strike? Not just insistence, but actual rules as written that anything past these sections would define another target.