So you refuse to answer if Fire Bolt targets the caster? If Thorn Whip targets the caster?
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.
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.
<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.
The point of this is, and remains to be, that "You" being contained in a spell does not meaningful determine any target.
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
I have described multiple times that the caster IS NOT influenced by the spell,
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
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.
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,
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'
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.
nor does the spell ever state or indicate that the caster is a target.
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
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.
; 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.
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).
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.
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)
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.
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.
Ok, lets look at spells that call for tageting.
Bless:
You bless up to three creatures within range. Whenever a target makes an attack roll or a saving throw before the spell ends, the target adds 1d4 to the attack roll or save.
you choose a target, that being three creatures within range.
Disintegrate:
You launch a green ray at a target you can see within range. The target can be a creature, a nonmagical object, or a creation of magical force, such as the wall created by Wall of Force.
...
You select a target
Haste:
Choose a willing creature that you can see within range. Until the spell ends, the target’s Speed is doubled, it gains a +2 bonus to Armor Class, it has Advantage on Dexterity saving throws, and it gains an additional action on each of its turns. That action can be used to take only the Attack (one attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Utilize action.
When the spell ends, the target is Incapacitated and has a Speed of 0 until the end of its next turn, as a wave of lethargy washes over it.
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:
For the duration, no sound can be created within or pass through a 20-foot-radius Sphere centered on a point you choose within range. Any creature or object entirely inside the Sphere has Immunity to Thunder damage, and creatures have the Deafened condition while entirely inside it. Casting a spell that includes a Verbal component is impossible there.
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.
Areas of Effect. Some spells, such as Thunderwave, cover an area called an area of effect, which is defined in the rules glossary. The area determines what the spell targets. The description of a spell specifies whether it has an area of effect, which is typically one of these shapes: Cone, Cube, Cylinder, Emanation, Line, or Sphere.
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.
Quote from esampson>>In syllogism form, since you insist:
A Target is the creature or object targeted by an attack roll, forced to make a saving throw by an effect, or (emphasis mine) selected* to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon. (PHB, Glossary, Target)
The caster receives a flash of insight that guides them to make an attack by a spell.
Therefore, the caster is a Target
*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).or (emphasis mine) selected* to receive
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.
Each creature in a 20-foot-radius Sphere centered on that point makes a Dexterity saving throw, taking 8d6 Fire damage on a failed save or half as much damage on a successful one.
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.
Further to this, technically targeting yourself is also defined in the rules
Targeting Yourself. If a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can choose yourself unless the creature must be Hostile or specifically a creature other than you.
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.
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).
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.
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).
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.
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. [...]
Self. The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them, as specified in the spell.
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?
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.
I don't think the author had any problem. They only used "Range: Self" correctly.
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.
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.
What do these all have in common, they tell you too choose a target, all of these spells are capable of targeting creatures.
Just to be clear, a spell description absolutely does NOT have to actually use the word "target" for there to be a target. The target is generally determined by interpreting the entirety of the text provided.
For the duration, no sound can be created within or pass through a 20-foot-radius Sphere centered on a point you choose within range. Any creature or object entirely inside the Sphere has Immunity to Thunder damage, and creatures have the Deafened condition while entirely inside it. Casting a spell that includes a Verbal component is impossible there.
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.
I am actually quite sympathetic to this line of reasoning. I was repeatedly making this exact argument regarding spells targeting a creature vs AoE spell effects passively "affecting" a creature (and correctly so) under the 2014 ruleset. Even though that was an unpopular interpretation at that time, it was the correct one.
However, an obvious design change has been made to the game when it comes to this concept under the 2024 ruleset. Now, in addition to targeting the point of origin during spellcasting, it is clear that the intention is that any time a spell effect interacts with a creature such that that creature is "affected" by it resulting in some sort of consequence, that creature should be considered to be a "target" of the spell under the new rules. Unfortunately, the Rules Glossary entry for the term "Target" was not perfectly written -- it is flawed and incomplete and is unable to cover all of the edge cases that it is meant to cover as currently written. But it's a little bit in bad faith to go looking for these edge cases when the design here was clearly meant to be all-encompassing.
As such, until that Glossary Entry gets some errata, here is my suggestion and you're not going to like it . . .
In situations like the Silence spell, consider that the creatures in question actually were forced to make a saving throw, but that the DC for this saving throw is impossible to meet no matter what, resulting in an automatic failure and the consequence of the spell effect always affects the creature in question. After all, it's a little bit silly to consider a creature that succeeded on a save and therefore was unaffected to have been targeted by the spell but a creature that is wrecked by the spell no matter what was not actually targeted. It's better to just abide by the overall 2024 design which is that spell effects which affect creatures actually target those creatures.
The use of the phrase "overthinking it" in this thread's title was surprisingly prescient.
It's what this forum does best, really
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)
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. [...]
Self. The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them, as specified in the spell.
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?
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.
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.
You need to stop it with the attitude. You've been around here long enough that you know better.
Extremely obviously, my comment here was made in the context of a discussion about spells that are cast at creatures since that is one of the requirements of the Reactive Spell feature of the War Caster feat that was being discussed. That feature requires the spell to be cast at the creature that is fleeing away from the spellcaster. It is impossible for any spell with a Range of Self to be cast at such a creature since by definition the only creature that such a spell can be cast at is the spellcaster.
Ok, I'll stop. My replies didn't have any special attitude, I just didn't understand you. But in any case, sorry if I bothered you.
My last contribution to this thread is part of the transcription for the Sage Advice - Targeting Revisited Dragontalk podcast where Jeremy Crawford explains what Range means, and where to look to know the targets. The main difference now is that spells no longer use the "Range: Self (X radius, line, etc.)" notation used in the 2014 PHB. They have been updated to just "Range: Self".
---
timestamp: in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything we have some spells that actually appeared in an earlier DnD book (Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide) that now reappear and their range changed and that change has naturally caused some questions. Their ranges originally were that simple X ft meaning it could have the point of origin of the spell [...] over there. So these spells were spells like Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade which when you then read them you see: I'm actually making a weapon attack with these spells and these were actually unusual spells when we wrote them because we had not yet created at that point spells that incorporated into themselves an attack. We had spells like the Paladin's smite spells in the PHB that enhanced attacks but did not include within them the weapon attack itself. Here we experimented with that and to be totally frank the original range entries were wrong [...]
timestamp: we were looking at the spells and realized these range entries are simply wrong because like Burning Hands like Color Spray like Lightning Bolt you swinging your weapon can never originate any farther away than yourself. Saying range X feet was simply an error and so we fixed it. So now they have a range of self with a parentheses 5 ft radius and then inside the spell you read: okay you brandish the weapon you used as a part of the spell casting and you target somebody within this radius [...]
timestamp: people also have wondered how did these interact with War Caster. A feat that allows you to make an opportunity attack with a spell as long as you target only one thing with that opportunity attack. And so then the question is "Can you use booming blade with its new range of self parentheses to make that opportunity attack as defined by War Caster?". The answer is yes and the reason why it goes back to what I was saying about our rules on Range where you'll notice that as soon as we get to the Self parentheses part we don't talk about you targeting yourself because spells in this category you have to look at the spell to see what exactly are you targeting because all Self parentheses tells us some magic is extending out from me [and] we'll see who are, what it's targeting, and in the case of Booming Blade who or what's being targeted is the person you attack with it [...]
So you refuse to answer if Fire Bolt targets the caster? If Thorn Whip targets the caster?
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.
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.
<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.
The point of this is, and remains to be, that "You" being contained in a spell does not meaningful determine any target.
I see. At this point it isn't that you are accidentally shooting at the wrong target, you are deliberately doing so. What can I do to help you find the correct target? I've already shown you where my point lies. At this point it seems like you are resorting to strawman arguments.
The use of the word 'You' is irrelevant to my interpretation. You can pull out any spell you like that features the word 'you' and you will be proving nothing other than an inability to address my point.
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
I have described multiple times that the caster IS NOT influenced by the spell,
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
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.
The inspiration that guides the caster must come from somewhere. Given that it comes as the spell is cast there is a reasonable interpretation of cause and effect, with the casting being causal.
Now, cause and effect can sometimes be mistaken. Just because you beat a tom-tom drum every morning doesn't mean that you are causing the Sun to rise.
However, the burden, in this case, is not that I have to demonstrate that the inspiration must be caused by the spell. I only have to establish that it can be caused by the spell.
It is only necessary to establish that it must be caused by the spell if I am trying to prove that your interpretation cannot be correct. I am not making that claim. I am saying there is an alternative possibility.
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,
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'
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.
The only thing a poll conclusively proves is the opinion of the general populace. When the majority of the world believed the Earth was flat it was still round.
This isn't meant to dismiss the wisdom of the crowd. If 99% if people were telling me that my interpretation was wrong then I would be examining my interpretation and conclusion with even greater attention, but as it is the minority opinion is more than significant enough that taking a poll 'proves' nothing (other than opinion)
nor does the spell ever state or indicate that the caster is a target.
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
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.
; 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.
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).
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.
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)
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.
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.
Ok, lets look at spells that call for tageting.
Bless:
You bless up to three creatures within range. Whenever a target makes an attack roll or a saving throw before the spell ends, the target adds 1d4 to the attack roll or save.
you choose a target, that being three creatures within range.
Disintegrate:
You launch a green ray at a target you can see within range. The target can be a creature, a nonmagical object, or a creation of magical force, such as the wall created by Wall of Force.
...
You select a target
Haste:
Choose a willing creature that you can see within range. Until the spell ends, the target’s Speed is doubled, it gains a +2 bonus to Armor Class, it has Advantage on Dexterity saving throws, and it gains an additional action on each of its turns. That action can be used to take only the Attack (one attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Utilize action.
When the spell ends, the target is Incapacitated and has a Speed of 0 until the end of its next turn, as a wave of lethargy washes over it.
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:
For the duration, no sound can be created within or pass through a 20-foot-radius Sphere centered on a point you choose within range. Any creature or object entirely inside the Sphere has Immunity to Thunder damage, and creatures have the Deafened condition while entirely inside it. Casting a spell that includes a Verbal component is impossible there.
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.
Again, this is the wrong target. I have not said anything about the Targets of Bless, Disintegrate, or Haste. They specify Targets. Great. Fantastic. I can link you to a website about archery that will also talk all about Targets and which has zero to do with this discussion.
Silence, on the other hand, is a good counter-example so you probably should not have brought it up. The people affected by Silence absolutely are Targets. You will find almost no one who agrees with you that they aren't. They are in the area and the area defines what the spell Targets.
Areas of Effect. Some spells, such as Thunderwave, cover an area called an area of effect, which is defined in the rules glossary. The area determines what the spell targets. The description of a spell specifies whether it has an area of effect, which is typically one of these shapes: Cone, Cube, Cylinder, Emanation, Line, or Sphere.
At no point in here does it say an area specifically targets all creatures within said area,
And that would be because some spells do not Target all creatures in the area of effect. Some spells only let you chose a limited number of creatures in the area of effect and some spells allow the caster to choose which creatures within the area of effect are Targeted (e.g., Conjure Celestial). It does, however, say that the area determines the Target, not that the area is the Target.
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.
Correct, because as I said, the area only creates the potential that things inside it are Targets. There may be extenuating circumstances which prevent creatures within the area from being Targets (such as full cover or the specific nature of the spell).
Silence specifies that the target is a point in space, it's quiet abundantly clear that it does so.
Indeed? Where, exactly, does it explicitly state that the point in space is the Target?
Oh! I get it. You are interpreting 'centered on a point within range' as 'Targeting'. Well, I suppose that's a reasonable interpretation based on the reading.
Hmm...I wonder if there are other spells where we might have to interpret what the Target is since it isn't explicitly spelled out.
Quote from esampson>>In syllogism form, since you insist:
A Target is the creature or object targeted by an attack roll, forced to make a saving throw by an effect, or (emphasis mine) selected* to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon. (PHB, Glossary, Target)
The caster receives a flash of insight that guides them to make an attack by a spell.
Therefore, the caster is a Target
*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).or (emphasis mine) selected* to receive
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.
Are you familiar with the term 'selected by lots'? For clarity, there are actually two possible meanings of that, but in this case I am referring to the process of a random selection. Nobody chooses. If there is any choosing that is done, it is by the Universe/Omnipotent Being/Fate/Fill in the Blank.
To head off anticipated arguments, yes, something can be 'selected by lots' even if is the only thing in the pool and I can just as easily argue that the Universe/Mystra/Fate/Fill in the Blank is the one that does the choosing because of who cast the spell.
Again, let's not get hung up on a single word.
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.
Each creature in a 20-foot-radius Sphere centered on that point makes a Dexterity saving throw, taking 8d6 Fire damage on a failed save or half as much damage on a successful one.
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.
Further to this, technically targeting yourself is also defined in the rules
Targeting Yourself. If a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can choose yourself unless the creature must be Hostile or specifically a creature other than you.
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.
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).
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.
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).
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.
Likewise, see my counterpoint to the dictionary argument.
I'm getting bored of these overly long posts, it comes down to a simple point, you're insisting, that 'guided by a flash of magical insight' indicates the caster could be a target but this simple point remains unproven, until you can actually prove that this is the case, there is no point in any more discussion, it's just a waste of both our times. Simply put, nothing in that statement indicates a target, so again, prove it, show in the rules where that could indicate targeting.
Until you can show it, I'm not going to respond anymore, it's just a waste of time, you're just insisting it can mean that without showing the specific rule for it. I have shown the literal rule for targeting yourself, and the rules for targeting yourself explicitly states that it requires spells that have a choice of creatures, it's pointless to go further at this point.
If the whole thing is just going to be you insisting that one line can mean something but there is nothing else in the rules that at all backs that up, we will just be here forever and never come to any resolution. So until you can prove that it in fact can mean this thing you've been insisting on, I'll just simply disagree because of the Targeting Yourself rule which literally appears in the spellcasting section, any other debate and arguments are meaningless.
I'm getting bored of these overly long posts, it comes down to a simple point, you're insisting, that 'guided by a flash of magical insight' indicates the caster could be a target but this simple point remains unproven, until you can actually prove that this is the case, there is no point in any more discussion, it's just a waste of both our times. Simply put, nothing in that statement indicates a target, so again, prove it, show in the rules where that could indicate targeting.
Until you can show it, I'm not going to respond anymore, it's just a waste of time, you're just insisting it can mean that without showing the specific rule for it. I have shown the literal rule for targeting yourself, and the rules for targeting yourself explicitly states that it requires spells that have a choice of creatures, it's pointless to go further at this point.
If the whole thing is just going to be you insisting that one line can mean something but there is nothing else in the rules that at all backs that up, we will just be here forever and never come to any resolution. So until you can prove that it in fact can mean this thing you've been insisting on, I'll just simply disagree because of the Targeting Yourself rule which literally appears in the spellcasting section, any other debate and arguments are meaningless.
My apologies for the length that the posting has grown into. I did try to keep it shorter by pointing out that certain arguments were irrelevant and not germane, but when I did so you accused me of intellectual dishonesty. After I explained precisely why those arguments were irrelevant you then proceeded to generate even more of them in the exact same vein (focused on a single word, though you did move from the word 'You' to the word 'Target', which is why I refer to it being in the same vein rather than identical).
As for your proof, here it is, again, in brief.
The caster has a guiding inspiration according to the description of the spell, unless you wish to discount that portion of the description as meaningless flavor and fluff. You are completely free to do so, at which point your interpretation is the correct one. You cannot, however, simply demand everyone discounts that statement as fluff. If you can find something that proves that the statement is meaningless flavor and fluff, you could prove your point.
The only real way I can foresee to do so is to basically get 'Word of God' in some form which either directly or indirectly indicates that. There may be other routes to accomplish this that I cannot think of, but attacking that position by bringing up other spells is pointless. It would be like attempting to use cats or other mammals to prove that fish can't have gills.
So, we will leave 'proving the text is fluff' as a possible avenue of attack and note that any other spell you might care to bring up is a meaningless distraction from the issue.
The caster has this guiding inspiration after casting the spell. I was kind, earlier, and implied that you could make an argument for a false causation, but really, you can't. That particular guiding inspiration occurs every time the spell is cast. That means that the casting of the spell causes an effect on the caster.
This gives us 'proving the guiding inspiration is not an effect of the spell' as a possible avenue of attack on your part. Saying that the inspiration does not exist is not a valid argument, in this case, because if you could do that then it would make your first argument valid.
Rearranging our syllogism, we get:
The caster receives an effect from the spell (unless either of the first two arguments can be proven true).
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. (PHB, Glossary, Target)
Therefore, the caster is a Target
This takes us to your third potential avenue of attack, proving the syllogism is false. The only route I can see to doing this is to focus on the word 'selected', but as I have stated above, I do not consider that adequate proof since I provided instances where 'selected' may be applied when there is no choice. I can provide other examples as well, if you like. Similarly I would not focus heavily on the fact that the phrase is 'the effect' rather than 'an effect'. Plenty of spells Target things but with only a portion of their effects, so we have to write off that particular choice of verbiage as a minor error in what is intended. There may be other valid routes which you can attack that syllogism, but I cannot see them at present.
So, in short, I can see three possible avenues for you to use:
Prove the description line is fluff.
Prove that the guiding inspiration is not an effect of the spell.
Prove a flaw in the syllogism (beyond the fact that it uses the word 'selected').
Hopefully you can now see why your previous arguments have left me unconvinced. This is not a matter of 'insisting'. I am completely open to the idea of being wrong and have said so on multiple occasions. Most likely, if I am proven wrong, it will come about through the first argument (Word of God will come down that shows that the description line is fluff).
Of course there exists the possibility of other lines of attack that I am missing. I'm not omniscient and I do make mistakes. If you can find some other valid and conclusive line of attack that proves your point I would welcome it.
Please note, this series of arguments and logical constructs do not lead to the conclusion that True Strike must Target the caster. Other than a time last year when I had an error in my understanding of what Range: Self meant I have not advocated such a position. I have only maintained that it is a possible and plausible interpretation of the rules.
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.
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
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)
Ok, I'll stop. My replies didn't have any special attitude, I just didn't understand you. But in any case, sorry if I bothered you.
My last contribution to this thread is part of the transcription for the Sage Advice - Targeting Revisited Dragontalk podcast where Jeremy Crawford explains what Range means, and where to look to know the targets. The main difference now is that spells no longer use the "Range: Self (X radius, line, etc.)" notation used in the 2014 PHB. They have been updated to just "Range: Self".
---
timestamp: in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything we have some spells that actually appeared in an earlier DnD book (Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide) that now reappear and their range changed and that change has naturally caused some questions. Their ranges originally were that simple X ft meaning it could have the point of origin of the spell [...] over there. So these spells were spells like Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade which when you then read them you see: I'm actually making a weapon attack with these spells and these were actually unusual spells when we wrote them because we had not yet created at that point spells that incorporated into themselves an attack. We had spells like the Paladin's smite spells in the PHB that enhanced attacks but did not include within them the weapon attack itself. Here we experimented with that and to be totally frank the original range entries were wrong [...]
timestamp: we were looking at the spells and realized these range entries are simply wrong because like Burning Hands like Color Spray like Lightning Bolt you swinging your weapon can never originate any farther away than yourself. Saying range X feet was simply an error and so we fixed it. So now they have a range of self with a parentheses 5 ft radius and then inside the spell you read: okay you brandish the weapon you used as a part of the spell casting and you target somebody within this radius [...]
timestamp: people also have wondered how did these interact with War Caster. A feat that allows you to make an opportunity attack with a spell as long as you target only one thing with that opportunity attack. And so then the question is "Can you use booming blade with its new range of self parentheses to make that opportunity attack as defined by War Caster?". The answer is yes and the reason why it goes back to what I was saying about our rules on Range where you'll notice that as soon as we get to the Self parentheses part we don't talk about you targeting yourself because spells in this category you have to look at the spell to see what exactly are you targeting because all Self parentheses tells us some magic is extending out from me [and] we'll see who are, what it's targeting, and in the case of Booming Blade who or what's being targeted is the person you attack with it [...]
---
It's reasonable to include this for completeness of the discussion. However, it is well known that JC is very often wrong about the rules in his off-the-cuff posts and in his spur-of-the-moment verbal remarks. Especially when it comes to the concepts of Range and Targeting -- he has been wrong about these things a great many times. Because of this, many such comments from him never actually make it into the officially published Sage Advice text and they also do not end up as errata that is added into the game. Furthermore, in this particular case, all of these comments are referring to the 2014 version of the rules. As we know, there were many very significant changes made to the concepts of Range and Targeting in the 2024 rules.
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
Just so I understand, is it your position that there are a great many officially published spells in the game that simply do not Target anything at all? Because I believe that you are going to find yourself pretty alone in holding that interpretation. Spells basically always Target something in at least one of the ways in which the term "target" is used in the PHB.
One of the ways that the term "target" is commonly used in the rules which is not adequately covered by the Rules Glossary definition of Target is related to the procedure for casting a spell, as seen in about a half dozen rules that appear in the Spells --> Casting Spells section of the PHB. This usage of the term makes it clear that the selection of the point of origin is a Targeting process as seen in rules such as:
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.
and
A Clear Path to the Target. To target something with a spell, a caster must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind Total Cover.
and
Targeting Yourself. If a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can choose yourself unless the creature must be Hostile or specifically a creature other than you.
and
Areas of Effect. Some spells, such as Thunderwave, cover an area called an area of effect, which is defined in the Rules Glossary. The area determines what the spell targets. The description of a spell specifies whether it has an area of effect, which is typically one of these shapes: Cone, Cube, Cylinder, Emanation, Line, or Sphere.
and
Invalid Targets. If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by it, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended.
and
An area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the effect’s energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how to position its point of origin.
. . .
If the creator of an area of effect places it at an unseen point and an obstruction—such as a wall—is between the creator and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of the obstruction.
The other way that the term "target" is used when it comes to spellcasting is after the spell effect comes into existence. When a creature is affected by such an effect in various ways then it has been targeted by the spell (in the 2024 rules). The details for how this works are mostly given in the Rules Glossary entry for "Target", which is not perfectly written and misses some edge cases that were clearly intended to be included.
The notion that there are a great many spells that simply do not target anything at all is not in line with the design of the game.
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.
This just isn't the case.
If a spell is not an AoE spell and it is directed at a creature and has a Range of Self, then that spell is targeting the spellcaster during the spellcasting process since the spellcaster was selected as the location where the spell's magic originates and in a vast majority of such cases the spell effect that is created is targeting the spellcaster as per the spell's description. The spell just wouldn't actually do anything otherwise, since such a spell effect only exists at the spellcaster's location.
Now, for AoE spells it's a bit different because the spell effect fills an area that extends beyond the spellcaster's location, potentially affecting other creatures (and sometimes not affecting the point of origin). So, it would be necessary to read and properly interpret the spell description to determine what is being targeted in such cases.
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
If all of this ongoing debate really is about how the True Strike spell works and how it interacts with the Reactive Spell feature of the War Caster feat . . . well, that has been definitively answered a couple of times in this thread already. Otherwise . . . I'm starting to lose track of what people are actually arguing about in this thread at this point.
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. The spell has a Range of Self. By definition, that means that the spell is cast AT the spellcaster because that's where the spell effect originates.
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
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)
timestamp: in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything we have some spells that actually appeared in an earlier DnD book (Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide) that now reappear and their range changed and that change has naturally caused some questions. Their ranges originally were that simple X ft meaning it could have the point of origin of the spell [...] over there. So these spells were spells like Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade which when you then read them you see: I'm actually making a weapon attack with these spells and these were actually unusual spells when we wrote them because we had not yet created at that point spells that incorporated into themselves an attack. We had spells like the Paladin's smite spells in the PHB that enhanced attacks but did not include within them the weapon attack itself. Here we experimented with that and to be totally frank the original range entries were wrong [...]
timestamp: we were looking at the spells and realized these range entries are simply wrong because like Burning Hands like Color Spray like Lightning Bolt you swinging your weapon can never originate any farther away than yourself. Saying range X feet was simply an error and so we fixed it. So now they have a range of self with a parentheses 5 ft radius and then inside the spell you read: okay you brandish the weapon you used as a part of the spell casting and you target somebody within this radius [...]
timestamp: people also have wondered how did these interact with War Caster. A feat that allows you to make an opportunity attack with a spell as long as you target only one thing with that opportunity attack. And so then the question is "Can you use booming blade with its new range of self parentheses to make that opportunity attack as defined by War Caster?". The answer is yes and the reason why it goes back to what I was saying about our rules on Range where you'll notice that as soon as we get to the Self parentheses part we don't talk about you targeting yourself because spells in this category you have to look at the spell to see what exactly are you targeting because all Self parentheses tells us some magic is extending out from me [and] we'll see who are, what it's targeting, and in the case of Booming Blade who or what's being targeted is the person you attack with it [...]
It's reasonable to include this for completeness of the discussion. However, it is well known that JC is very often wrong about the rules in his off-the-cuff posts and in his spur-of-the-moment verbal remarks. Especially when it comes to the concepts of Range and Targeting -- he has been wrong about these things a great many times. Because of this, many such comments from him never actually make it into the officially published Sage Advice text and they also do not end up as errata that is added into the game. Furthermore, in this particular case, all of these comments are referring to the 2014 version of the rules. As we know, there were many very significant changes made to the concepts of Range and Targeting in the 2024 rules.
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.
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
RAI, maybe. RAW, no. The effect on the caster is described in the Spell description. Spells do what they say they do. That includes doing everything they say that they do, not ignoring portions inconvenient for your particular stance.
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
I have described multiple times that the caster IS NOT influenced by the spell,
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
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.
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.
The touch of your shadow-wreathed hand can siphon life force from others to heal your wounds.Make a melee spell attack against one creature within reach. On a hit, the target takes 3d6 Necrotic damage, and you regain Hit Points equal to half the amount of Necrotic damage dealt.
Until the spell ends, you can make the attack again on each of your turns as a Magic action, targeting the same creature or a different one.
Using a Higher-Level Spell Slot. The damage increases by 1d6 for each spell slot level above 3.
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).
Cantrip Upgrade. Whether you deal Radiant damage or the weapon’s normal damage type, the attack deals extra Radiant damage when you reach levels 5 (1d6), 11 (2d6), and 17 (3d6).
* - (a weapon with which you have proficiency and that is worth 1+ CP)
I'm getting bored of these overly long posts, it comes down to a simple point, you're insisting, that 'guided by a flash of magical insight' indicates the caster could be a target but this simple point remains unproven, until you can actually prove that this is the case, there is no point in any more discussion, it's just a waste of both our times. Simply put, nothing in that statement indicates a target, so again, prove it, show in the rules where that could indicate targeting.
Yes. Exactly this. We are saying it could be the target. You're saying that's impossible. To which, my response is that interpreting it as the caster is not the target is totally valid, but please don't dismiss alternative interpretations. I think sufficient logic has been laid out both points of view, but there will be no proof of either stance until it is addressed in Sage Advice (which, sadly, I don't honestly know if that will be a thing going forward).
I think True Strike needs a clarification, more in regards to spell attack versus weapon attack. I think you're probably right about RAI, just not about RAW. I certainly won't be banning it from use with War Caster, but I also won't let a Wizard apply their Wand of the War Mage bonus to True Strike attacks. Both of these are true whether WotC comes back and says True Strike targets the caster or is a Spell Attack or the opposites.
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 an excellent RAI argument, just not a RAW one. Still, following this logic, 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?
timestamp: in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything we have some spells that actually appeared in an earlier DnD book (Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide) that now reappear and their range changed and that change has naturally caused some questions. Their ranges originally were that simple X ft meaning it could have the point of origin of the spell [...] over there. So these spells were spells like Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade which when you then read them you see: I'm actually making a weapon attack with these spells and these were actually unusual spells when we wrote them because we had not yet created at that point spells that incorporated into themselves an attack. We had spells like the Paladin's smite spells in the PHB that enhanced attacks but did not include within them the weapon attack itself. Here we experimented with that and to be totally frank the original range entries were wrong [...]
timestamp: we were looking at the spells and realized these range entries are simply wrong because like Burning Hands like Color Spray like Lightning Bolt you swinging your weapon can never originate any farther away than yourself. Saying range X feet was simply an error and so we fixed it. So now they have a range of self with a parentheses 5 ft radius and then inside the spell you read: okay you brandish the weapon you used as a part of the spell casting and you target somebody within this radius [...]
timestamp: people also have wondered how did these interact with War Caster. A feat that allows you to make an opportunity attack with a spell as long as you target only one thing with that opportunity attack. And so then the question is "Can you use booming blade with its new range of self parentheses to make that opportunity attack as defined by War Caster?". The answer is yes and the reason why it goes back to what I was saying about our rules on Range where you'll notice that as soon as we get to the Self parentheses part we don't talk about you targeting yourself because spells in this category you have to look at the spell to see what exactly are you targeting because all Self parentheses tells us some magic is extending out from me [and] we'll see who are, what it's targeting, and in the case of Booming Blade who or what's being targeted is the person you attack with it [...]
It's reasonable to include this for completeness of the discussion. However, it is well known that JC is very often wrong about the rules in his off-the-cuff posts and in his spur-of-the-moment verbal remarks. Especially when it comes to the concepts of Range and Targeting -- he has been wrong about these things a great many times. Because of this, many such comments from him never actually make it into the officially published Sage Advice text and they also do not end up as errata that is added into the game. Furthermore, in this particular case, all of these comments are referring to the 2014 version of the rules. As we know, there were many very significant changes made to the concepts of Range and Targeting in the 2024 rules.
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.
Official Rulings(2014 Sage Advice since this is Tasha's Cauldron of Everything). A public statement (such as an interview) is not an official ruling. At best, it is an indicator of RAI, but not RAW.
Official Rulings
Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. The tweets of Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), the game’s principal rules designer, are sometimes a preview of rulings that will appear here.
A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.
Also, note that Booming blade describes an action performed by the caster (brandishing a weapon) not an effect on the caster (magical guidance).
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?
I've had the same thought. Which then led to thinking about a GFB/Cleave build, potentially as a hunter ranger for Horde Breaker and Martial Adept for Sweeping maneuver too, where I'm just scattering secondary damage all over the place
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 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
On the contrary, my statement above is so fundamentally correct that my general explanations for what spells are cast at should be enshrined as an axiom of spellcasting in D&D 5e.
The process for spellcasting begins with the spellcaster, often accompanied by some sort of verbal cues and/or hand gestures. This magic is then directed along a clear path to a chosen location to be the point of origin for the spell effect. By doing this, the spellcaster casts the spell at that location ("at" a creature or object or "something else"). Sometimes, that location is also the target of the spell effect and sometimes it is not. Furthermore, that location must be within range, by rule.
For the Fire Bolt spell, the spell is cast at a creature within range.
For the Fireball spell, the spell is cast at a point in space.
For spells with a Range of Self, such as True Strike, the spell is cast at the spellcaster.
Range
A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate . . .
Self. The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them, as specified in the spell.
In the 2024 rules, the question of whether or not a spell emanates from the spellcaster is now well defined. A new type of AoE called an Emanation has been created to handle such cases and the spell description will clearly and explicitly indicate if such a concept applies to that spell.
Absent that, we are left with the fact that for spells that have a Range of Self, by rule, "The spell is cast on the spellcaster". By rule, such spells are not allowed to be cast "AT" or "ON" any other creature because those creatures are outside of the Range.
When it comes to the interaction between True Strike and War Caster, it is not necessary to resolve the issue of what the True Strike spell targets, it is enough to just realize that the spell has a Range of Self and thus cannot be cast at the fleeing creature because it MUST be cast on the spellcaster, by rule.
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. 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.
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 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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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.
The use of the phrase "overthinking it" in this thread's title was surprisingly prescient.
pronouns: he/she/they
Just to be clear, a spell description absolutely does NOT have to actually use the word "target" for there to be a target. The target is generally determined by interpreting the entirety of the text provided.
I am actually quite sympathetic to this line of reasoning. I was repeatedly making this exact argument regarding spells targeting a creature vs AoE spell effects passively "affecting" a creature (and correctly so) under the 2014 ruleset. Even though that was an unpopular interpretation at that time, it was the correct one.
However, an obvious design change has been made to the game when it comes to this concept under the 2024 ruleset. Now, in addition to targeting the point of origin during spellcasting, it is clear that the intention is that any time a spell effect interacts with a creature such that that creature is "affected" by it resulting in some sort of consequence, that creature should be considered to be a "target" of the spell under the new rules. Unfortunately, the Rules Glossary entry for the term "Target" was not perfectly written -- it is flawed and incomplete and is unable to cover all of the edge cases that it is meant to cover as currently written. But it's a little bit in bad faith to go looking for these edge cases when the design here was clearly meant to be all-encompassing.
As such, until that Glossary Entry gets some errata, here is my suggestion and you're not going to like it . . .
In situations like the Silence spell, consider that the creatures in question actually were forced to make a saving throw, but that the DC for this saving throw is impossible to meet no matter what, resulting in an automatic failure and the consequence of the spell effect always affects the creature in question. After all, it's a little bit silly to consider a creature that succeeded on a save and therefore was unaffected to have been targeted by the spell but a creature that is wrecked by the spell no matter what was not actually targeted. It's better to just abide by the overall 2024 design which is that spell effects which affect creatures actually target those creatures.
Ok, this just isn't going to fly.
Alter Self absolutely 100% targets the spellcaster. It's right in the name and it's not ambiguous in the spell description:
Your physical form is being altered by the spell effect. This spell targets the spellcaster. This one is as straightforward as it gets.
It's what this forum does best, really
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)
Blinding Smite is not an Emanation spell.
You need to stop it with the attitude. You've been around here long enough that you know better.
Extremely obviously, my comment here was made in the context of a discussion about spells that are cast at creatures since that is one of the requirements of the Reactive Spell feature of the War Caster feat that was being discussed. That feature requires the spell to be cast at the creature that is fleeing away from the spellcaster. It is impossible for any spell with a Range of Self to be cast at such a creature since by definition the only creature that such a spell can be cast at is the spellcaster.
Ok, I'll stop. My replies didn't have any special attitude, I just didn't understand you. But in any case, sorry if I bothered you.
My last contribution to this thread is part of the transcription for the Sage Advice - Targeting Revisited Dragontalk podcast where Jeremy Crawford explains what Range means, and where to look to know the targets. The main difference now is that spells no longer use the "Range: Self (X radius, line, etc.)" notation used in the 2014 PHB. They have been updated to just "Range: Self".
---
timestamp: in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything we have some spells that actually appeared in an earlier DnD book (Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide) that now reappear and their range changed and that change has naturally caused some questions. Their ranges originally were that simple X ft meaning it could have the point of origin of the spell [...] over there. So these spells were spells like Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade which when you then read them you see: I'm actually making a weapon attack with these spells and these were actually unusual spells when we wrote them because we had not yet created at that point spells that incorporated into themselves an attack. We had spells like the Paladin's smite spells in the PHB that enhanced attacks but did not include within them the weapon attack itself. Here we experimented with that and to be totally frank the original range entries were wrong [...]
timestamp: we were looking at the spells and realized these range entries are simply wrong because like Burning Hands like Color Spray like Lightning Bolt you swinging your weapon can never originate any farther away than yourself. Saying range X feet was simply an error and so we fixed it. So now they have a range of self with a parentheses 5 ft radius and then inside the spell you read: okay you brandish the weapon you used as a part of the spell casting and you target somebody within this radius [...]
timestamp: people also have wondered how did these interact with War Caster. A feat that allows you to make an opportunity attack with a spell as long as you target only one thing with that opportunity attack. And so then the question is "Can you use booming blade with its new range of self parentheses to make that opportunity attack as defined by War Caster?". The answer is yes and the reason why it goes back to what I was saying about our rules on Range where you'll notice that as soon as we get to the Self parentheses part we don't talk about you targeting yourself because spells in this category you have to look at the spell to see what exactly are you targeting because all Self parentheses tells us some magic is extending out from me [and] we'll see who are, what it's targeting, and in the case of Booming Blade who or what's being targeted is the person you attack with it [...]
---
I see. At this point it isn't that you are accidentally shooting at the wrong target, you are deliberately doing so. What can I do to help you find the correct target? I've already shown you where my point lies. At this point it seems like you are resorting to strawman arguments.
The use of the word 'You' is irrelevant to my interpretation. You can pull out any spell you like that features the word 'you' and you will be proving nothing other than an inability to address my point.
The inspiration that guides the caster must come from somewhere. Given that it comes as the spell is cast there is a reasonable interpretation of cause and effect, with the casting being causal.
Now, cause and effect can sometimes be mistaken. Just because you beat a tom-tom drum every morning doesn't mean that you are causing the Sun to rise.
However, the burden, in this case, is not that I have to demonstrate that the inspiration must be caused by the spell. I only have to establish that it can be caused by the spell.
It is only necessary to establish that it must be caused by the spell if I am trying to prove that your interpretation cannot be correct. I am not making that claim. I am saying there is an alternative possibility.
The only thing a poll conclusively proves is the opinion of the general populace. When the majority of the world believed the Earth was flat it was still round.
This isn't meant to dismiss the wisdom of the crowd. If 99% if people were telling me that my interpretation was wrong then I would be examining my interpretation and conclusion with even greater attention, but as it is the minority opinion is more than significant enough that taking a poll 'proves' nothing (other than opinion)
Again, this is the wrong target. I have not said anything about the Targets of Bless, Disintegrate, or Haste. They specify Targets. Great. Fantastic. I can link you to a website about archery that will also talk all about Targets and which has zero to do with this discussion.
Silence, on the other hand, is a good counter-example so you probably should not have brought it up. The people affected by Silence absolutely are Targets. You will find almost no one who agrees with you that they aren't. They are in the area and the area defines what the spell Targets.
And that would be because some spells do not Target all creatures in the area of effect. Some spells only let you chose a limited number of creatures in the area of effect and some spells allow the caster to choose which creatures within the area of effect are Targeted (e.g., Conjure Celestial). It does, however, say that the area determines the Target, not that the area is the Target.
Correct, because as I said, the area only creates the potential that things inside it are Targets. There may be extenuating circumstances which prevent creatures within the area from being Targets (such as full cover or the specific nature of the spell).
Indeed? Where, exactly, does it explicitly state that the point in space is the Target?
Oh! I get it. You are interpreting 'centered on a point within range' as 'Targeting'. Well, I suppose that's a reasonable interpretation based on the reading.
Hmm...I wonder if there are other spells where we might have to interpret what the Target is since it isn't explicitly spelled out.
Are you familiar with the term 'selected by lots'? For clarity, there are actually two possible meanings of that, but in this case I am referring to the process of a random selection. Nobody chooses. If there is any choosing that is done, it is by the Universe/Omnipotent Being/Fate/Fill in the Blank.
To head off anticipated arguments, yes, something can be 'selected by lots' even if is the only thing in the pool and I can just as easily argue that the Universe/Mystra/Fate/Fill in the Blank is the one that does the choosing because of who cast the spell.
Again, let's not get hung up on a single word.
Likewise, see my counterpoint to the dictionary argument.
I'm getting bored of these overly long posts, it comes down to a simple point, you're insisting, that 'guided by a flash of magical insight' indicates the caster could be a target but this simple point remains unproven, until you can actually prove that this is the case, there is no point in any more discussion, it's just a waste of both our times. Simply put, nothing in that statement indicates a target, so again, prove it, show in the rules where that could indicate targeting.
Until you can show it, I'm not going to respond anymore, it's just a waste of time, you're just insisting it can mean that without showing the specific rule for it. I have shown the literal rule for targeting yourself, and the rules for targeting yourself explicitly states that it requires spells that have a choice of creatures, it's pointless to go further at this point.
If the whole thing is just going to be you insisting that one line can mean something but there is nothing else in the rules that at all backs that up, we will just be here forever and never come to any resolution. So until you can prove that it in fact can mean this thing you've been insisting on, I'll just simply disagree because of the Targeting Yourself rule which literally appears in the spellcasting section, any other debate and arguments are meaningless.
My apologies for the length that the posting has grown into. I did try to keep it shorter by pointing out that certain arguments were irrelevant and not germane, but when I did so you accused me of intellectual dishonesty. After I explained precisely why those arguments were irrelevant you then proceeded to generate even more of them in the exact same vein (focused on a single word, though you did move from the word 'You' to the word 'Target', which is why I refer to it being in the same vein rather than identical).
As for your proof, here it is, again, in brief.
The caster has a guiding inspiration according to the description of the spell, unless you wish to discount that portion of the description as meaningless flavor and fluff. You are completely free to do so, at which point your interpretation is the correct one. You cannot, however, simply demand everyone discounts that statement as fluff. If you can find something that proves that the statement is meaningless flavor and fluff, you could prove your point.
The only real way I can foresee to do so is to basically get 'Word of God' in some form which either directly or indirectly indicates that. There may be other routes to accomplish this that I cannot think of, but attacking that position by bringing up other spells is pointless. It would be like attempting to use cats or other mammals to prove that fish can't have gills.
So, we will leave 'proving the text is fluff' as a possible avenue of attack and note that any other spell you might care to bring up is a meaningless distraction from the issue.
The caster has this guiding inspiration after casting the spell. I was kind, earlier, and implied that you could make an argument for a false causation, but really, you can't. That particular guiding inspiration occurs every time the spell is cast. That means that the casting of the spell causes an effect on the caster.
This gives us 'proving the guiding inspiration is not an effect of the spell' as a possible avenue of attack on your part. Saying that the inspiration does not exist is not a valid argument, in this case, because if you could do that then it would make your first argument valid.
Rearranging our syllogism, we get:
This takes us to your third potential avenue of attack, proving the syllogism is false. The only route I can see to doing this is to focus on the word 'selected', but as I have stated above, I do not consider that adequate proof since I provided instances where 'selected' may be applied when there is no choice. I can provide other examples as well, if you like. Similarly I would not focus heavily on the fact that the phrase is 'the effect' rather than 'an effect'. Plenty of spells Target things but with only a portion of their effects, so we have to write off that particular choice of verbiage as a minor error in what is intended. There may be other valid routes which you can attack that syllogism, but I cannot see them at present.
So, in short, I can see three possible avenues for you to use:
Hopefully you can now see why your previous arguments have left me unconvinced. This is not a matter of 'insisting'. I am completely open to the idea of being wrong and have said so on multiple occasions. Most likely, if I am proven wrong, it will come about through the first argument (Word of God will come down that shows that the description line is fluff).
Of course there exists the possibility of other lines of attack that I am missing. I'm not omniscient and I do make mistakes. If you can find some other valid and conclusive line of attack that proves your point I would welcome it.
Please note, this series of arguments and logical constructs do not lead to the conclusion that True Strike must Target the caster. Other than a time last year when I had an error in my understanding of what Range: Self meant I have not advocated such a position. I have only maintained that it is a possible and plausible interpretation of the rules.
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.
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
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)
It's reasonable to include this for completeness of the discussion. However, it is well known that JC is very often wrong about the rules in his off-the-cuff posts and in his spur-of-the-moment verbal remarks. Especially when it comes to the concepts of Range and Targeting -- he has been wrong about these things a great many times. Because of this, many such comments from him never actually make it into the officially published Sage Advice text and they also do not end up as errata that is added into the game. Furthermore, in this particular case, all of these comments are referring to the 2014 version of the rules. As we know, there were many very significant changes made to the concepts of Range and Targeting in the 2024 rules.
Just so I understand, is it your position that there are a great many officially published spells in the game that simply do not Target anything at all? Because I believe that you are going to find yourself pretty alone in holding that interpretation. Spells basically always Target something in at least one of the ways in which the term "target" is used in the PHB.
One of the ways that the term "target" is commonly used in the rules which is not adequately covered by the Rules Glossary definition of Target is related to the procedure for casting a spell, as seen in about a half dozen rules that appear in the Spells --> Casting Spells section of the PHB. This usage of the term makes it clear that the selection of the point of origin is a Targeting process as seen in rules such as:
and
and
and
and
and
The other way that the term "target" is used when it comes to spellcasting is after the spell effect comes into existence. When a creature is affected by such an effect in various ways then it has been targeted by the spell (in the 2024 rules). The details for how this works are mostly given in the Rules Glossary entry for "Target", which is not perfectly written and misses some edge cases that were clearly intended to be included.
The notion that there are a great many spells that simply do not target anything at all is not in line with the design of the game.
This just isn't the case.
If a spell is not an AoE spell and it is directed at a creature and has a Range of Self, then that spell is targeting the spellcaster during the spellcasting process since the spellcaster was selected as the location where the spell's magic originates and in a vast majority of such cases the spell effect that is created is targeting the spellcaster as per the spell's description. The spell just wouldn't actually do anything otherwise, since such a spell effect only exists at the spellcaster's location.
Now, for AoE spells it's a bit different because the spell effect fills an area that extends beyond the spellcaster's location, potentially affecting other creatures (and sometimes not affecting the point of origin). So, it would be necessary to read and properly interpret the spell description to determine what is being targeted in such cases.
If all of this ongoing debate really is about how the True Strike spell works and how it interacts with the Reactive Spell feature of the War Caster feat . . . well, that has been definitively answered a couple of times in this thread already. Otherwise . . . I'm starting to lose track of what people are actually arguing about in this thread at this point.
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. The spell has a Range of Self. By definition, that means that the spell is cast AT the spellcaster because that's where the spell effect originates.
You are fundamentally incorrect, either by RAW or by RAI
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)
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.
RAI, maybe. RAW, no. The effect on the caster is described in the Spell description. Spells do what they say they do. That includes doing everything they say that they do, not ignoring portions inconvenient for your particular stance.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
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.
True Strike
Yeah, that's right. Alter Self lost the ability to fly in the conversion to 5e from 3.5. :D
Yes. Exactly this. We are saying it could be the target. You're saying that's impossible. To which, my response is that interpreting it as the caster is not the target is totally valid, but please don't dismiss alternative interpretations. I think sufficient logic has been laid out both points of view, but there will be no proof of either stance until it is addressed in Sage Advice (which, sadly, I don't honestly know if that will be a thing going forward).
I think True Strike needs a clarification, more in regards to spell attack versus weapon attack. I think you're probably right about RAI, just not about RAW. I certainly won't be banning it from use with War Caster, but I also won't let a Wizard apply their Wand of the War Mage bonus to True Strike attacks. Both of these are true whether WotC comes back and says True Strike targets the caster or is a Spell Attack or the opposites.
This is an excellent RAI argument, just not a RAW one. Still, following this logic, 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?
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Official Rulings (2014 Sage Advice since this is Tasha's Cauldron of Everything). A public statement (such as an interview) is not an official ruling. At best, it is an indicator of RAI, but not RAW.
Also, note that Booming blade describes an action performed by the caster (brandishing a weapon) not an effect on the caster (magical guidance).
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I've had the same thought. Which then led to thinking about a GFB/Cleave build, potentially as a hunter ranger for Horde Breaker and Martial Adept for Sweeping maneuver too, where I'm just scattering secondary damage all over the place
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)
On the contrary, my statement above is so fundamentally correct that my general explanations for what spells are cast at should be enshrined as an axiom of spellcasting in D&D 5e.
The process for spellcasting begins with the spellcaster, often accompanied by some sort of verbal cues and/or hand gestures. This magic is then directed along a clear path to a chosen location to be the point of origin for the spell effect. By doing this, the spellcaster casts the spell at that location ("at" a creature or object or "something else"). Sometimes, that location is also the target of the spell effect and sometimes it is not. Furthermore, that location must be within range, by rule.
For the Fire Bolt spell, the spell is cast at a creature within range.
For the Fireball spell, the spell is cast at a point in space.
For spells with a Range of Self, such as True Strike, the spell is cast at the spellcaster.
In the 2024 rules, the question of whether or not a spell emanates from the spellcaster is now well defined. A new type of AoE called an Emanation has been created to handle such cases and the spell description will clearly and explicitly indicate if such a concept applies to that spell.
Absent that, we are left with the fact that for spells that have a Range of Self, by rule, "The spell is cast on the spellcaster". By rule, such spells are not allowed to be cast "AT" or "ON" any other creature because those creatures are outside of the Range.
When it comes to the interaction between True Strike and War Caster, it is not necessary to resolve the issue of what the True Strike spell targets, it is enough to just realize that the spell has a Range of Self and thus cannot be cast at the fleeing creature because it MUST be cast on the spellcaster, by rule.
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. 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.
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.
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.