Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
Also Spirit Guardians, Cone of Cold, Aura of Purity & all other such spells, they define self as range/area but the self is not the target.
you know what, that's probably it.
<sigh>
Some people feel that this implicitly defines the caster as the Target (under your own 'Rule 3')
Every single time they made that claim they 'showed' you.
If, somehow, you have managed to avoid seeing this argument during the various discussions, you may now consider yourself 'shown'
Now, you can choose not to accept what was shown. It is a matter of interpretation, after all.
However, you cannot accurately say you have not been shown.
By the way, being affected by a spell does not make you the target, a target is specified as per the rules, If somebody cast a wall of force, it blocks you moving through it but you are not the target, in the True Strike spell there is no references to a target, only to an attack. But anyways, I already addressed this with Fire bolt. Do you believe that Fire bolt is not valid for War Caster?
Fire bolt:
You perform an action when casting fire bolt, are you the target of Fire Bolt? If so, this spell means you can now only ever target yourself and not another creature. Clearly a reference to "you" here does not make you the target, so why special pledge that for True Strike?
Then past this, What about the rest of these spells?
Eldritch Blast:
Again, first thing mentioned, YOU.
Poison Spray:
Again, first word is YOU and it's an action performed by "YOU".
Shocking Grasp:
Here is another example of "YOU" performing an action, trying to touch another creature, yet nobody would assume that "YOU" is a target of shocking grasp.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells?filter-search=&filter-level=0&filter-attack-type=1&filter-attack-type=2&filter-verbal=&filter-somatic=&filter-material=&filter-concentration=&filter-ritual=&filter-source=148&filter-source=145&filter-partnered-content=f
Sorcerous Burst, Starry Wisp and Thorn Whip also are a problem here.
Clearly in all these spells, just like True Strike, "you" is being used to describe an action you take to CAST the spell, and has nothing to do with the spell targeting you. YOU is never specified as the target.
In fact it can even be argued as per the rules, the only time you target yourself with a spell, is when you could instead target another creature with that same spell but you select yourself as per:
Which is to say that spells that can only affect yourself as caster do not need a target, such as disguise self or alter self, since there is nothing in the interaction that actually needs targeting.
=====
So again
Yes. I can and have pointed to it. You simply do not wish to accept it.
That does not mean I haven't done it.
Ironically, I have realized that you are the one being insistent and not showing that the interpretation is not valid. You insist on a specific interpretation (one which I have admitted is a valid interpretation) and act as though because that interpretation exists no other interpretation can possibly exist.
I will try to make it simple:
Unless you can somehow show that it is literally impossible to interpret that description as targeting the caster, all you are doing is 'insisting'. I do not mean 'you give me an alternate interpretation', 'you ask me how I think a different spell works', 'this part over here implies what the target is', 'that's just fluff', 'think of the children', or some other argument. You have to show that, either, the Target for True Strike is explicitly stated somewhere, or that it is impossible, linguistically, for the description to be interpreted as the caster being influenced by the spell.
If you can either of those, then you will be providing a valid argument. Otherwise, all you are doing is insisting.
(n.b.; I am not saying that your interpretation is clearly incorrect. I am simply saying that you have failed to show that it must be correct.)
So you refuse to answer if Fire Bolt targets the caster? If Thorn Whip targets the caster?
And yes, I have shown that my interpretation must be correct, you simply refuse to accept it.
Fire Bolt does not target the caster, when you cast fire bolt, you do not roll an attack roll against yourself.
1) Fire bolt mentions you
2)
All you're doing at this point is special pledging that True Strike is different to literally every other spell that mentions "you", which is actually a significant number of spells.
Further to this, technically targeting yourself is also defined in the rules
There is no choice of targets, for "YOU" making an attack with the weapon just like there is no choice for "you" when you hurl a mote of fire for fire bolt; Ergo, you're not targeting yourself with any of these spells. And we know this has to be the case, because you do not make a ranged spell attack against yourself when you cast fire bolt against an orc/goblin/spider/whatever creature, that is 30 foot away from you.
I'm not refusing. I'm just not bothering. They are not germane.
I will also not talk about whether tools target the character since the rules say 'If you have proficiency with a tool. . .' for the exact same reason.
What I will do is point out that I stated that 'you ask me how I think a different spell works' would not be a valid argument (for the reasons given), yet you want to fall back on that.
Did you show somewhere were the Target for True Strike is explicitly stated or that it is impossible, linguistically, for the description to be interpreted as the caster being influenced by the spell? No?
Then you have not, despite your insistence
Actually, I'm not. You're the one hung up on the specific word 'you' (which probably explains why you think these other spells prove anything).
What I am doing is maintaining that when interpreting the entire first sentence of True Strike the idea that the spell is affecting the caster and causing them to act is a valid interpretation (linguistically speaking)
It isn't clear to me what you are trying to say here. Are you implying that because there is no choice of Target for the spell under my interpretation (and that the only choice is the choice for the Target of the Attack), it is not possible that the caster to be the Target?
The fact that you cannot chose the Target of the spell (in my interpretation) does not mean the Target cannot be you. You can't chose the Target for Alter Self, either. Using your logic, Alter Self can't Target the caster (at least in so far as I can understand your argument).
A useful thought experiment would be consider standing 50' away from an Anti-Magic Shell and firing into it with a Fire Bolt and with True Strike + Longbow. What would happen in each case?
With the Fire Bolt, I don't believe there's any controversy: the target inside the Anti-Magic Shell would suffer no effects from the Fire Bolt. The Fire Bolt would hit the limits of the Anti-Magic Shell and instantly dissipate.
What about the True Strike? It seems clear to me that the target would still suffer the normal damage from the bow as they would any non-True Strike attack from the Longbow. The entire debate about this interaction would revolve around which parts of the magic imbued into that mundane bow shot got stripped away before it reached the target.
So again, you refuse to answer the most obviously connected thing. This is just being purposefully dishonest at this point, you know the point and you refuse to answer because at that point, your point falls a part.
I have described multiple times that the caster IS NOT influenced by the spell, I even stated, showed that when spells start with "you do something" this is merely stating the action that the caster toke to cast the spell or as part of casting the spell. In the case of true strike the caster performs a weapon attack whereas in fire bolt the caster hauls a a mote of fire but in none of these spells do we ever consider the caster to be the target nor do the spells ever say the caster is the target, nor does the spell ever state or indicate that the caster is a target. At this point you're just asking me to prove a negative when the positive statement, "the caster is the target" has never been proven. Thus the burden of proof here remains on yourself, not on me.
at no point in that first sentence does true strike call for a target or indicate targeting anything with regards to the flash of inspiration, again, a creature being affected by a spell does not infer the creature is the target of a spell. Silence targets a point in space and yet creatures in it are silenced despite not being "targets" of the spell. So again, there is nothing in this that indicates anything regarding targeting. So again, the burden of proof here is to prove that such a statement does incur targeting, not the opposite way around, which again, is merely insistence on your part that it works this way, literally nothing in the rules backs up this idea. which again, I asked you too show.
I never said the spell does not choose a target, the target of the spell is the target of the resulting attack roll. I said that the first line gives nothing to indicate any choice of target and thus you can not be targeted by it (the first line). But yes, a target needs to be chose and there is no indication that spells like Alter Self has a target, while spells typically have a target, there is no hard and fast rule that all spells do or that it's even a requirement, as such Alter Self does not have a target.
you mean an Antimagic Field
but no, you'd not be able to target a creature within an Antimagic Field with an attack from True Strike.
While you perform a weapon attack as part of casting True Strike, that weapon attack is still from True Strike and the target is the target of the spell, as such a target within an Antimagic Field is simply not a valid target to begin with for the True Strike spell.
When you cast Haste, you receive an extra Action you can use for Attack. That extra Attack is 'from Haste' every bit as much as the weapon attack is 'from' True Strike. Is it your argument that an Anti-Magic Field across the courtyard can counteract your Haste? In both case, you're using a magical effect outside of the Anti-Magic Field to generate a normal non-magical attack you wouldn't otherwise receive.
Haste creates a separate action, if that action is a mundane weapon attack then the result of that action is non-magical despite the action itself originating from a magical place.
True Strike creates a weapon attack as part of casting the spell, that attack is thus part of the spell, it is not an independent action and that would leave you unable to target a creature in an anti-magic field with an attack from True Strike.
This for example is the difference between Find Steed and Summon Dragon. If the steed from find steed enters an anti-magic field, it is basically unaffected but if the Dragonic Spirit from Summon Dragon enters an anti-magic field, it would be suspended (disappears). Two spells that summon creatures but 1 is affected and 1 isn't. Anti-magic fields are crazy things that just don't interact with things in the way people normally think they would, thought experiments around them will give you wonky results.
Why is the attack from True Strike "part of the spell" any more than the attack from Haste is "part of the spell"? In both cases, you have a spell creating an Attack action that would not have otherwise occurred. In neither case is that Attack action itself magical.
You can make the argument that Fire Bolt affects the caster, IF Dominate Person/Monster/Etc affected the target of an attack the charmed creature was compelled to make.
True Strike:
True Strike has more in common with Shillelagh than Fire Bolt. Vampiric Touch is an even better example, because it gives you an attack every round but also allows you to make an attack the round you cast it. The caster is the target of the spell, not the target of the attack.
I think the developers took to heart the terrible action economy of 2014's True Strike and made a single action alternative. In doing so, they created an unintentional, in my opinion, grey area.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Maybe save yourself the trouble and cast Shillelagh on a stick and use that instead.
Which might bring up, why not do both?!
"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
<sigh>
Since you seem to be unable to understand, I suppose I must spell it out so you will feel that I have addressed all the spells you listed.
I do not think Firebolt targets the caster. It does say the caster does something,. However, as I have tried to make clear, my position is not predicated on that. My position is that True Strike has other verbiage that implies an effect on the caster (i.e., 'Guided by a flash of magical insight'). Your example does not imply any such effect upon the caster. Thus, it is not germane example and proves nothing.
I do not think Eldritch Blast targets the caster. It does say the caster does something,. However, as I have tried to make clear, my position is not predicated on that. My position is that True Strike has other verbiage that implies an effect on the caster (i.e., 'Guided by a flash of magical insight'). Your example does not imply any such effect upon the caster. Thus, it is not germane example and proves nothing.
I do not think Poison Spray targets the caster. It does say the caster does something,. However, as I have tried to make clear, my position is not predicated on that. My position is that True Strike has other verbiage that implies an effect on the caster (i.e., 'Guided by a flash of magical insight'). Your example does not imply any such effect upon the caster. Thus, it is not germane example and proves nothing.
I do not think Shocking Grasp targets the caster. It does say the caster does something,. However, as I have tried to make clear, my position is not predicated on that. My position is that True Strike has other verbiage that implies an effect on the caster (i.e., 'Guided by a flash of magical insight'). Your example does not imply any such effect upon the caster. Thus, it is not germane example and proves nothing.
The only thing these examples prove is that you do not understand what you are arguing against. This explains why you think you have proven you point when you haven't. You are in the unenviable position of an archer who claims that they won the match after scoring on the wrong target.
No, you have not described how it is impossible to interpret "guided by a flash of magical insight' as the caster being influenced by the spell. You may have stated you don't believe that is what that means, but you have failed to show that it cannot mean that.
Completely true, but again, this does not prove your point. It only proves that you are shooting at the wrong target.
And again, that is completely true and completely the wrong target.
If by 'none of these spells' you mean your examples, you are correct. If by 'none of these spells' you are including True Strike (which grammatically is covered under 'none of these spells' due to its location in the sentence), then you are incorrect, unless you have taken up the use of the royal 'we'.
It does indicate it if you interpret 'guided by a flash of magical insight' to mean that the spell is affecting the caster. Again, just because you do not like this interpretation does not mean it does not exist.
Incorrect. proving a negative is something like trying to prove zombies don't exist. I am asking you to show me how, grammatically, it is impossible to interpret 'guided by a flash of insight' as the caster being affected by the spell. That's not asking you to prove that zombies don't exist. That's asking you to prove that a specific person is not a zombie (relatively easy to do, unless they actually are a zombie).
I'm a little uncertain how to address this. If you mean it does not say that the caster is the one being guided by the flash of inspiration, you are incorrect. It absolutely does. It is a feature of English called Subject-Verb Inversion.
If you are saying that the word 'Target' is not used, that is true. However, the word isn't used anywhere at all in the description of the spell and so we are forced to interpret what the Target or Targets of the spell are. You do not like my interpretation, and I get that. You have not, however, established that it is an invalid interpretation.
Um....what? The PHB quite literally states 'the area determines what the spell targets'.
In syllogism form, since you insist:
*Even though the caster has no choice in who the spell effects, the caster is 'selected' by the spell. Otherwise spells such as Alter Self would have no Target rather than having the caster as the Target. Furthermore, creatures struck by a Fireball would not be Targets since they were not 'selected'.
The only way to disprove that syllogism is to prove that the second sentence is false (i.e., that it is impossible to interpret the first sentence that way).
I will simply refer you to the definition from the glossary of a Target up above. You will notice there is no mention of choice.
Trying to argue that spells that only affect the caster have no Target will lead to all sorts unpleasantness. I'm not even going to bother trying to find examples of the problems that could cause since I think it should be self evident (unless you really insist).
Obviously this is all interpretive (which is why I don't think it qualifies as defining a target), but "guided by a flash of magical insight..." works just fine as a narrative version of "using your mental casting stat instead of your physical stat..." Because the magic is coming from you, and it's your "mind" (Int, Wis, or Cha) swinging the weapon, not your "body" (Str or Dex).
I completely agree, which is why I don't try and take the stand of 'it must be this way'. Is my interpretation correct? I don't know and I may never know because the devs seem very reticent about clarifying the situation.
I do, however, reserve the right to get a little testy when people try and be dismissive of my interpretation (as opposed to actually addressing what I am saying).
Yes, I'm sure.
Blinding Smite: The spell has a range of self. The spell is cast on (or "at") the spellcaster. That's the origin point for the spell effect. If this spell was being cast on the creature that is being attacked, it would have a range of "Touch" instead of a range of "Self". But by designing it this way instead, the spell can allow for Thrown weapons and the spell description doesn't have to come up with a proper range for that. So, in this case, the spellcaster is being granted with an ability to smite something and that ability is used right away as the attack is resolved. There were definitely far better ways that the spell could have been written, but this is what they went with.
Banishing Smite: Same mechanics as Blinding Smite.
Ensnaring Strike: Similar mechanics to the smite spells above.
Hail of Thorns: Similar.
Lightning Arrow: Similar.
It seems to me that the commonality between these above 5 spells is that the author would have had difficulty defining a proper range for the spell since it's meant to be applied to any attack which could be pretty far away for a Longbow attack but such a long range for the spell would be nonsensical for a melee attack, and so on. So instead, the spell imbues the spellcaster with a special ability to enhance the attack in question, whatever that might be.
Shillelagh: Ok, yes, this is slightly different. Instead of the spell being cast "at" the spellcaster, this spell instead is cast "at" an object that is located within the spellcaster's space, such as an object that the spellcaster is holding. The point remains. Such a spell is ineligible for the Reactive Spell feature of the War Caster feat because the spell is not being cast "at" the creature in question.
Spirit Guardians: This spell creates an Emanation from the spellcaster. The spell is cast "at" the spellcaster and as such the spellcasting process targets the spellcaster to establish the spell's point of origin. However, in this case, the spell effect that is created does not target the spellcaster because the general rules for an Emanation create an explicit exception:
Cone of Cold: This spell creates a Cone that originates at the spellcaster. The spell is cast "at" the spellcaster and as such the spellcasting process targets the spellcaster to establish the spell's point of origin. However, in this case, the spell effect that is created does not target the spellcaster because the general rules for a Cone create an explicit exception:
Aura of Purity: Same mechanics as Spirit Guardians above except that in this case the spell description actually explicitly causes the spellcaster to be targeted by the effects of the Emanation, overriding the general rule for an Emanation.
I'm not sure why Wall of Force is relevant to this discussion. It's not a Range of Self spell. Being unable to pass through the wall is not actually something that affects a creature. A spell effect only affects a creature when it interacts with one in the manner described by the description.
In the case of Wall of Force, the "point you choose within range" is the target of the spell during the spellcasting, and if the Wall happens to cut through a creature's space when it appears, then the spell effect has targeted that creature. The result of that creature being targeted is that it is pushed to one side of the wall.
I'm not sure where this is coming from either. Fire Bolt is not a Range of Self spell. It has a Range of 120 feet and the spell description makes it clear that the spell is being cast "AT a creature". A spell attack against the target is created which is the spell effect interacting with that creature. Clearly that creature is the target of the spell.
These spells which begin with descriptions such as "You hurl a mote of fire at a creature within range" are using some flavor text to describe what the spell effect looks like as it pops into existence. There is an instantaneous flash which appears between the spellcaster and the target creature as the spell effect is "hurled", but mechanically what is actually happening is that the spell effect originates AT the target creature's location, not at the spellcaster's location. Clearly this spell is eligible for the Reactive Spell feature of the War Caster feat since it meets all of the requirements.
The way that all spellcasting works is that the spellcasting is initiated at the spellcaster's location with a series of spell components (hand gestures, verbal, etc) and then the magic "travels" (instantaneously, along a "clear path") to the location that is selected to be the point of origin for the spell effect. For spells with a Range of Self, this occurs at the spellcaster's location, for other spells this likely occurs at some other location.
This makes no sense. Alter Self and Disguise Self work in a similar way. They both have a Range of Self, and they both create a spell effect that targets the spellcaster. So, the spellcaster is targeted during the spellcasting since the spellcaster is selected as the location for the point of origin for the spell effect and also in another sense the spellcaster is targeted by the spell effect that is created there as per the spell description.
At the end of the day, the best interpretation for True Strike is that the spell targets the spellcaster during the spellcasting process and the resulting spell effect targets the spellcaster which results in imbuing the spellcaster with a special ability. That ability is to be able to enhance one mundane, non-magical weapon attack (it's not a spell attack) in the manner that is described by the spell description.
The reasons why this is the best interpretation is not as simple as just noticing the word "you" in the spell description. The entirety of the spell description (which includes the spell parameters) must be interpreted as a whole. The spell has a Range of Self. This means that the spell cannot be cast "at" or "on" anything except the spellcaster. By definition, this is the location where the spell effect originates for this spell. That's what a Range of Self means in this game. Once that spell effect originates (at the spellcaster), the things that are described in the effect block now happen. It is clear that the spellcaster gains a flash of magical insight because that's what the spell says. What that magical insight allows you to do is to make one mundane weapon attack in a certain manner. By the way, you don't even have to attack a creature with that attack. But whatever you do attack will be the target of that attack (and NOT the target of a spell) as per the first clause for the Rules Glossary definition of Target.
If instead True Strike said something like "Make a melee spell attack against a target creature within range" and the Range of the spell was "Touch", then that creature in question would be the target of the spell. But that's not even close to what the spell actually says.
The point of this is, and remains to be, that "You" being contained in a spell does not meaningful determine any target.
Again, you have not shown that it meaningfully CAN mean that. You're confusing where the burden of proof is here, there is no other spell where a line like this would ever meaningful make the user a target of their own spell. You're asking me to prove a negative without proving the positive, until you can prove it CAN mean that, it's just mere insistence.
By We, I mean the overall community (a majority), not an all encompassing term, this is a pointless waste of time of an argument obviously. If you want to try and prove me wrong, take a poll on it, we both know the community at large will not agree to the idea that True Strike targets anything but the target of the weapon attack, you can say it's arrogant or whatever to make such a statement but again, prove me wrong on it, don't just insist, since that'll never resolve anything.
Again, nothing in this statement indicates any targeting. You're just insisting it can, but nothing in any text anywhere in RAW indicates or supports such an interpretation.
Actually a negative goes beyond just trying to prove something does not exist, you're trying to ask me to prove that this statement does not indicate targeting (negative) to the positive claim that the statement does indicate targeting without proving that positive. You may need to look more into burden of proof since your statement here show only a brief interaction with it. In such a situation the burden of proof needs to be made for the positive claim before the burden shifts to the negative, you have yet to prove anything here.
Ok, lets look at spells that call for tageting.
Bless:
you choose a target, that being three creatures within range.
Disintegrate:
You select a target
Haste:
The target's speed is doubled.
What do these all have in common, they tell you too choose a target, all of these spells are capable of targeting creatures.
Now Silence:
At no point do you choose the creatures, nor are the creatures described as targets, it only tells you how creatures inside the targeted area are affect, the area is a sphere centered on a point you choose, which is a point in space, the target is a point in space. Creatures that leave silence are no longer affected by it while creatures that enter it become affected by it, creatures as such are not targets of the spell.
There is no such call for any area or creature in the statement, in the case of silence, we see creatures being affected which specifically are not the target of the spell, this is no difference to the flash of inspiration given in true strike, there is no targeting statement or caveat supplied in the spell.
here is what the PHB actually says
At no point in here does it say an area specifically targets all creatures within said area, it says the area itself determines what is targeted. Minor Illusion for example targets an area but wouldn't target a creature in that specific area. Silence specifies that the target is a point in space, it's quiet abundantly clear that it does so.
This is just arguing semantics but if I go to most dictionaries such as merriam-webster or the oxford dictionary, they all include the word "choice" as being selected. So I'd disagree with this hard, means that "selected" can not apply in this manner.
In regards to alter self, it has no target, prove that it does then we can have further discussion about it but until then, there is nothing in the spell that indicates a target.
Fireball harms creatures, not "targets"
However this said, we know that the creatures caught in Fireball are targets because they meet caveat 2 of the glossary term, they make a saving throw. So they are made targets in simply a different manor, the area itself does not make them targets, it is the saving throw that does that.
The Glossary mentions
1. targeted by an attack roll, 2. makes a saving throw, 3. "or selected to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon"
Selected as a dictionary definition requires choice/being chosen. So it just merges back into your previous statement.
You're assuming 'The spell is cast on (or "at") the spellcaster ' as the only valid interpretation. Why are you ignoring the "emanates from them" option?
I don't think the author had any problem. They only used "Range: Self" correctly.
So your assessment that 'in all cases where the spell has a Range of Self the spell is being cast "at" the spellcaster' was not technically right.