For example, suppose there was a spell with an instantaneous duration that causes a creature to have the Poisoned condition for 1 minute and the spell description explicitly defines a series of consequences for what happens to such a creature while it continues to have that Poisoned condition. In this example, the poison that is acting upon this creature on an ongoing basis is not magical. It is not happening because the creature is currently being targeted or affected by any spell. The instantaneous spell effect is long gone -- there is no longer any spell effect at all. A Detect Magic spell will not reveal anything magical.
Of course it would
For the duration, you sense the presence of magical effects within 30 feet of yourself. If you sense such effects, you can take the Magic action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that bears the magic, and if an effect was created by a spell, you learn the spell’s school of magic.
I guess we can add detect magic to the list of things you very confidently state absolutely incorrect things about
Try again. There is no effect to detect in the above example, which was the whole point of the example. Detect Magic does not detect things that do not exist.
Try again. There is no effect to detect in the above example, which was the whole point of the example. Detect Magic does not detect things that do not exist.
Maybe you should try again. The spell you described absolutely has a Magical Effect to detect -- it "causes a creature to have the Poisoned condition for 1 minute", with "a series of consequences for what happens to such a creature while it continues to have that Poisoned condition"
Let's use an actual spell with an Instantaneous duration, but a lingering effect, as an example. befuddlement, for instance. If someone failed their initial saving throw against it, a Detect Magic spell would reveal that they were under some kind of Enchantment school magic during the 30-day window before their next saving throw. That's unequivocally both RAW and RAI
Continuing this any further would be derailing on a thread about True Strike, but it seems pretty clear you fundamentally do not understand (or choose not to understand) what specific words and game terms mean. Which would seem to be something of a handicap when engaging in rules discussions
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)
Let's use an actual spell with an Instantaneous duration, but a lingering effect, as an example. befuddlement, for instance. If someone failed their initial saving throw against it, a Detect Magic spell would reveal that they were under some kind of Enchantment school magic during the 30-day window before their next saving throw. That's unequivocally both RAW and RAI
The example that I was going to bring up is Power Word Stun since the mechanics for that spell have been discussed on these forums before and it's a bit cleaner since that spell description never actually uses the word "effect" anywhere. But we can discuss Befuddlement instead since those mechanics are very similar.
Befuddlement is a spell with an instantaneous duration:
Duration
A spell’s duration is the length of time the spell persists after it is cast. A duration typically takes one of the following forms:
. . .
Instantaneous. An instantaneous duration means the spell’s magic appears only for a moment and then disappears.
Once a duration for a spell expires, that spell's magic is gone. It no longer exists.
In the case of Befuddlement, what the spell effect actually does when the spell is cast is that it "blasts the mind of a creature". Once the creature's mind has been blasted, that spell effect disappears. It does NOT continue to blast the creature's mind -- that's not what the spell says. Once this happens to a creature's mind (instantaneously), that mind has become damaged. It now takes a while for such a mind to recover back to full health. The "effect" that the spell description refers to is not the spell effect (after all, the spell effect has disappeared). It is the effect of having a damaged mind. That effect is not magical although it does persist on an ongoing basis. As such, Detect Magic will not detect any magic here. Dispel Magic would run into the same problem -- there is nothing to dispel.
The point of all of this is to make it clear that not all information given in every spell description is a description of the actual spell effect that is created by the casting of the spell or a description of that spell effect interacting with / affecting / targeting a creature that is mentioned somewhere in that text. Sometimes certain portions of the text are just providing additional restrictions, procedures, ongoing consequences, other additional useful information or even flavor text.
In the case of True Strike, the attack that is described is explicitly not a Spell Attack -- it is an attack with a weapon. This attack occurs as a consequence of casting the spell, but the spell effect for True Strike does NOT actually target the creature that is being attacked. The spell simply enables this attack to occur. The spellcasteris targeting that creature when he makes that attack.
We are in the situation of trying to parse 'Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas'.
I disagree. This is a different situation than that because we are not parsing a sentence in a vacuum. We have plenty of context, supporting evidence and an entire framework for the design of how spellcasting works in the game via many dozens of written general rules and mechanics. Taken together, this leads us to the correct interpretation. I will agree that many aspects of this game are ambiguous. This is not one of those cases.
A more appropriate analogy would be something like: "Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. The elephant was walking through an open field while wearing no clothes and I was walking nearby in the same open field while wearing my favorite pajamas and while holding a loaded pistol. I shot the elephant by pointing my loaded pistol in the direction of the naked elephant and pulling the trigger." Now, someone might take issue with a particular word or phrase in that example and claim that such a word or phrase could have multiple meanings but taken together as a whole there is only one correct interpretation for what has happened in that story.
You argue they are not the same and that we have plenty of context. That is actually a part of the reason I chose this particular example.
In this case, it is likewise context that make the listener (or reader) initially assume that the elephant can't be the one in the pajamas. Elephants are too big to fit into a normal pair of pajamas. Elephants are the wrong shape. If you make something the right size and shape, is it still really a pair of pajamas?
All sorts of arguments concerning context can be made by someone about how the sentence could not mean that the elephant was the one in the pajamas, and that there is only a single possible correct interpretation.
And naturally, those arguments would be wrong, because Groucho Marx did mean that the elephant was the one in the pajamas. When we start digging too deep to determine an interpretation, we can forget that the speaker might make an error or be using some sort of shorthand (e.g., the elephant wasn't literally in pajamas because, by definition, pajamas must be a certain shape that precludes an elephant, so when the speaker said 'pajamas' they really meant 'something pajama like, but which an elephant could fit into'.)
Furthermore, given that your understanding of Range appears flawed
Ok, you really should explain yourself further if you want to make preposterous claims like this.
From where I am sitting, the concept of Range in this game is incredibly straightforward. It is a restriction that is placed upon all spells when they are cast which determines how far away from the spellcaster the resulting spell effect is allowed to originate. If you believe that Range in this game means something else or works in some other way, then you really should directly quote the rules that support your claim.
Range of Self does not appear to automatically make the caster of the spell the Target. While it does seem a reasonable interpretation, in a fairly strict RAW interpretation, Range of Self states "the spell is cast on the spellcaster or (emphasis mine) emanates from them, as specified in the spell." Thus, a possible interpretation is that True Strike is emanating from the caster to the Target that is attacked, and having a spell emanating from someone does not, by the strict definitions of Targets, make them a Target (the strict definition requires either a roll to hit them, for them to be given the opportunity for a Saving Throw, or for them to be in some way effected by the spell. There is no explicit statement to indicate that something 'emanating' a spell has to be a Target).
The fact that you can figure out some way to argue that the caster is also the Target in every published spell with a Range of Self is irrelevant. It is like arguing why the elephant couldn't be in the pajamas because you can't find any. Just because you can't find any elephants wearing pajamas doesn't mean it can't occur.
The current definitions, as they stand, make it possible that a spell with a Range of Self doesn't Target the caster.
Once again, please note that I am not saying that the caster cannot be Targeted by the spell. I actually like to think of it as the spell working that way (and removing the ability for a Spell Focus to add to the roll, though I then bend strict interpretations with a houserule that allows Reactive Caster to be used). I am simply trying to point out to you that it is probably inadvisable to take the position that the caster must be Targeted by the spell and that your interpretation is the only one possible.
For the duration, you sense the presence of magical effects within 30 feet of yourself. If you sense such effects, you can take the Magic action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that bears the magic, and if an effect was created by a spell, you learn the spell’s school of magic.
The duration of the spell cast is not mentioned in either the Glossary definition of Magical Effect, or in Detect Magic, and is irrelevant. You are flat wrong
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)
You argue they are not the same and that we have plenty of context. That is actually a part of the reason I chose this particular example.
In this case, it is likewise context that make the listener (or reader) initially assume that the elephant can't be the one in the pajamas. Elephants are too big to fit into a normal pair of pajamas. Elephants are the wrong shape. If you make something the right size and shape, is it still really a pair of pajamas?
All sorts of arguments concerning context can be made by someone about how the sentence could not mean that the elephant was the one in the pajamas, and that there is only a single possible correct interpretation.
And naturally, those arguments would be wrong, because Groucho Marx did mean that the elephant was the one in the pajamas. When we start digging too deep to determine an interpretation, we can forget that the speaker might make an error or be using some sort of shorthand (e.g., the elephant wasn't literally in pajamas because, by definition, pajamas must be a certain shape that precludes an elephant, so when the speaker said 'pajamas' they really meant 'something pajama like, but which an elephant could fit into'.)
Respectfully, you've completely missed the point that I was making in response to this example.
Too often, people make the mistake of taking a super myopic view of the rules that they are analyzing for interpretation -- trying to look up definitions word by word or examining a single phrase or sentence in a vacuum and deciding that it must mean a certain thing based only on what those individual words or phrases mean. Instead, particularly with spell descriptions, we need to read and analyze the entire spell description (including the parameters) together as one broad concept. We also need to be aware of a great many general rules of the game which will inform how the information in the spell description should be interpreted.
In the case of True Strike, we should not just look at "Guided by a flash of magical insight . . ." and then stop there and ask, ok, what does that mean? Is that flavor text? Is that someone being targeted to have this happen? Is that something else entirely? Who knows! In a sense, given only that information the statement is ambiguous. Just like your elephant example is ambiguous. Sure, in the elephant example people might bring some of their own background knowledge about what an elephant is and what pajamas are to help them come up with the most likely interpretation. But, linguistically, taken in a vacuum, that elephant statement is ambiguous. If we approach our analysis of True Strike in the same manner, using only that information, then of course we'll be left with a feeling that it's ambiguous.
But that would be foolishly ignoring all of the rest of the information that is available to us which would help us to correctly determine the meaning. Information such as the Range of the spell. The duration of the spell. The material component of the spell in this case is pretty important. The lack of any AoE being created by the effect block of the spell. All of the dozens of general rules for spellcasting and the multitude of relevant rules that are listed in the Rules Glossary. These things matter. These things provide very important clues about what is actually going on with the spell. Again, we don't just examine a single phrase in a vacuum and make random declarations that the statement must be flavor text, or the statement must be mechanically significant. We look at the whole picture.
Range of Self does not appear to automatically make the caster of the spell the Target. While it does seem a reasonable interpretation, in a fairly strict RAW interpretation, Range of Self states "the spell is cast on the spellcaster or (emphasis mine) emanates from them, as specified in the spell."
For a spell to emanate from the spellcaster, the spell must specify this. The mechanism for doing so that is provided by the game is that an Emanation AoE is created whose point of origin is the spellcaster. A quick search through all of the spells that are published in the Basic Rules reveals zero spells which specify that a spell effect emanates from the spellcaster without explicitly creating an Emanation AoE. It's possible that I've missed something, but I doubt it -- this appears to be how the game is designed.
The fact that you can figure out some way to argue that the caster is also the Target in every published spell with a Range of Self is irrelevant.
When it comes to spells which affect a creature and which choose a creature as the point of origin for the spell, there are basically two broad categories: AoE spells, and non-AoE spells.
For AoE spells, what you are saying is correct. When a creature is selected as the point of origin of an AoE spell, that creature is not necessarily targeted by the resulting spell effect in the Rules Glossary sense of the term. In fact, the default for many standard AoE shapes is that they do not include the point of origin -- this includes the Cone, Line, Cube and Emanation shapes. For others, such as the sphere, the spell description might explicitly override the default by declaring that the point of origin is not included.
As an aside: The PHB does use the term "target" in a second way -- a way which is not included in the Rules Glossary entry for the term -- to simply describe this selection process of the point of origin. However, I would rule that a creature that is only "targeted" via this second usage of the term does not count towards the total number of creatures that are targeted by the spell for the purposes of determining disqualification from use with the War Caster feat. But again, this distinction only occurs with AoE spells.
As for the second category of spells -- the non-AoE spells -- there is no distinction. When such a spell targets a creature, that creature is the point of origin of the spell effect and that creature is also targeted by the spell effect. Fire Bolt, for example, works like this. That spell is aimed at a creature and is cast onto it. There is no AoE -- only that creature was affected. That creature was targeted by the spell. I do not know of any exceptions to this, and I don't know how there could be any. If it's a non-AoE spell and the spell is cast on a creature, then that creature is the target of the spell. This is how the game is designed, and the authors have been incredibly consistent with writing the spells to conform with this design.
In addition to the above concepts which relate to Ranges and Targeting, there is also the concept of what a spell is "cast at", since this is a phrase that is used as a specific requirement for the War Caster feat. For this, the actual target of the spell effect does not matter at all. Only the location of the point of origin matters since that is what a spell is cast at when it is cast by the spellcaster. The spellcaster initiates the process, typically with some verbal cues and hand gestures, and the magic of the spell moves from there along a clear path to the place where the spell effect originates. This applies to both AoE spells and non-AoE spells which is why all spells with a Range of Self are disqualified from being used with War Caster. It's not because of what the Range of Self spell targets, it's because of what the Range of Self spell is cast at. By rule, it is always cast at the spellcaster.
By that definition of "magic effect", everyone should glow with magic since they've almost certainly received magical healing or damage at some point - and their current hit points reflect the ongoing effect of that magic.
For the duration, you sense the presence of magical effects within 30 feet of yourself. If you sense such effects, you can take the Magic action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that bears the magic, and if an effect was created by a spell, you learn the spell’s school of magic.
The duration of the spell cast is not mentioned in either the Glossary definition of Magical Effect, or in Detect Magic, and is irrelevant. You are flat wrong
I'm glad it's the final time as hopefully that means that it will only need to be corrected once more.
An effect is only magical if it is (present tense) created by a spell. This means that the spell must be ongoing, hence the discussion about duration. An ongoing spell can cause the spell effect that it creates (when the spell is cast) to linger around in existence for the duration of the spell. When the spell expires, the spell effect ceases to exist. If the spell effect doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist. Any other "effect" that might be discussed is not magical. It's not created by the spell -- it cannot be, since that instance of the spell no longer exists.
In the spell in question, Befuddlement, the "effect" that the spell description refers to is not the spell effect (after all, the spell effect has disappeared). It is the effect of having a damaged mind. That effect is not magical although it does persist on an ongoing basis. As such, Detect Magic will not detect any magic here. Dispel Magic would run into the same problem -- there is nothing to dispel.
This is exactly why I would have preferred to discuss the spell Power Word Stun instead -- to avoid this exact myopic argument which focuses in on a single word in the spell description without context or a proper interpretation of what it means just to cause unnecessary complication.
Power Word Stun:
Duration: Instantaneous
You overwhelm the mind of one creature you can see within range. If the target has 150 Hit Points or fewer, it has the Stunned condition. Otherwise, its Speed is 0 until the start of your next turn.
The Stunned target makes a Constitution saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the condition on itself on a success.
This is a clean example of a spell description which creates an ongoing non-magical consequence to a creature. No mention of the word "effect" appears anywhere in this spell description. So, we must determine what the spell effect is by examining the spell as a whole . . .
This spell has an Instantaneous Duration. This means that the spell effect originates at the location specified in the description (at the target creature) and lasts for only an instant, then disappears. This spell effect targets the creature by "overwhelming it's mind" during that instant. Being overwhelmed causes the creature to gain the Stunned Condition in that moment. Once that spell effect disappears, the consequence of the creature having its mind overwhelmed is ongoing -- it continues to have the Stunned Condition on an ongoing basis as in this case the mind is unable to instantly recover from the instantaneous assault. Continuing to have this Stunned Condition is not a magical effect. There is no magic affecting the creature or creating any effect during this time period. When the creature makes the next saving throw, you can say that the creature is targeted by some sort of an effect, but that effect is not a magical one. Casting Dispel Magic on this creature will not cure it of its Stunned Condition.
You argue they are not the same and that we have plenty of context. That is actually a part of the reason I chose this particular example.
In this case, it is likewise context that make the listener (or reader) initially assume that the elephant can't be the one in the pajamas. Elephants are too big to fit into a normal pair of pajamas. Elephants are the wrong shape. If you make something the right size and shape, is it still really a pair of pajamas?
All sorts of arguments concerning context can be made by someone about how the sentence could not mean that the elephant was the one in the pajamas, and that there is only a single possible correct interpretation.
And naturally, those arguments would be wrong, because Groucho Marx did mean that the elephant was the one in the pajamas. When we start digging too deep to determine an interpretation, we can forget that the speaker might make an error or be using some sort of shorthand (e.g., the elephant wasn't literally in pajamas because, by definition, pajamas must be a certain shape that precludes an elephant, so when the speaker said 'pajamas' they really meant 'something pajama like, but which an elephant could fit into'.)
Respectfully, you've completely missed the point that I was making in response to this example.
Too often, people make the mistake of taking a super myopic view of the rules that they are analyzing for interpretation -- trying to look up definitions word by word or examining a single phrase or sentence in a vacuum and deciding that it must mean a certain thing based only on what those individual words or phrases mean. Instead, particularly with spell descriptions, we need to read and analyze the entire spell description (including the parameters) together as one broad concept. We also need to be aware of a great many general rules of the game which will inform how the information in the spell description should be interpreted.
In the case of True Strike, we should not just look at "Guided by a flash of magical insight . . ." and then stop there and ask, ok, what does that mean? Is that flavor text? Is that someone being targeted to have this happen? Is that something else entirely? Who knows! In a sense, given only that information the statement is ambiguous. Just like your elephant example is ambiguous. Sure, in the elephant example people might bring some of their own background knowledge about what an elephant is and what pajamas are to help them come up with the most likely interpretation. But, linguistically, taken in a vacuum, that elephant statement is ambiguous. If we approach our analysis of True Strike in the same manner, using only that information, then of course we'll be left with a feeling that it's ambiguous.
But that would be foolishly ignoring all of the rest of the information that is available to us which would help us to correctly determine the meaning. Information such as the Range of the spell. The duration of the spell. The material component of the spell in this case is pretty important. The lack of any AoE being created by the effect block of the spell. All of the dozens of general rules for spellcasting and the multitude of relevant rules that are listed in the Rules Glossary. These things matter. These things provide very important clues about what is actually going on with the spell. Again, we don't just examine a single phrase in a vacuum and make random declarations that the statement must be flavor text, or the statement must be mechanically significant. We look at the whole picture.
I understand it seems that way, but again, that is a part of why I chose that example. If you do not "foolishly ignore all the rest of the information that is available" then you will be in the position of arguing that the speaker must have meant they were wearing the pajamas, because all the information available leads to the wrong conclusion.
Range of Self does not appear to automatically make the caster of the spell the Target. While it does seem a reasonable interpretation, in a fairly strict RAW interpretation, Range of Self states "the spell is cast on the spellcaster or (emphasis mine) emanates from them, as specified in the spell."
For a spell to emanate from the spellcaster, the spell must specify this. The mechanism for doing so that is provided by the game is that an Emanation AoE is created whose point of origin is the spellcaster.
This is a very reasonable assumption, I agree, but it seems to be just an assumption. Can you point to anything in the book that specifies this?
(Incidentally, this is exactly the position I believed last year when I, like you, was insisting that the caster being Targeted was the only possible interpretation, so I understand where you are coming from.)
A quick search through all of the spells that are published in the Basic Rules reveals zero spells which specify that a spell effect emanates from the spellcaster without explicitly creating an Emanation AoE. It's possible that I've missed something, but I doubt it -- this appears to be how the game is designed.
I cannot find one which specifies that a spell effect emanates from the spellcaster without explicitly creating an Emanation AoE, but I can find one (actually, more than one, but I'm going to use this example for now) that implies that it emanates from the caster without creating an Emanation AoE.
Scrying has a Range of Self, yet the caster is capable of creating an invisible, intangible sensor anywhere on the same plane of existence as them. Now, you can probably come up with your own interpretation where the effect of the spell reaching out to that location from the caster is not an Emanation, but calling it an Emanation, barring something in print that explicitly shows it could not be, is a very reasonable interpretation.
So, if someone can't find something that actually forbids that from being an Emanation (and by that I don't mean they can't find another spell which appears to have an Emanation effect while having a Range of Self and no AoE), they now have no reason to believe that True Strike could not just be an Emanation from the caster to the Target.
I will admit that I believe that Scrying Targets both the caster and the subject, while the argument you are disagreeing with has only the subject ss the Target. However, I am only presenting Scrying to prove that it is possible to have an Emanation coming from a Range of Self spell without an AoE.
The fact that you can figure out some way to argue that the caster is also the Target in every published spell with a Range of Self is irrelevant.
When it comes to spells which affect a creature and which choose a creature as the point of origin for the spell, there are basically two broad categories: AoE spells, and non-AoE spells.
For AoE spells, what you are saying is correct. When a creature is selected as the point of origin of an AoE spell, that creature is not necessarily targeted by the resulting spell effect in the Rules Glossary sense of the term. In fact, the default for many standard AoE shapes is that they do not include the point of origin -- this includes the Cone, Line, Cube and Emanation shapes. For others, such as the sphere, the spell description might explicitly override the default by declaring that the point of origin is not included.
As an aside: The PHB does use the term "target" in a second way -- a way which is not included in the Rules Glossary entry for the term -- to simply describe this selection process of the point of origin. However, I would rule that a creature that is only "targeted" via this second usage of the term does not count towards the total number of creatures that are targeted by the spell for the purposes of determining disqualification from use with the War Caster feat. But again, this distinction only occurs with AoE spells.
As for the second category of spells -- the non-AoE spells -- there is no distinction. When such a spell targets a creature, that creature is the point of origin of the spell effect and that creature is also targeted by the spell effect. Fire Bolt, for example, works like this. That spell is aimed at a creature and is cast onto it. There is no AoE -- only that creature was affected. That creature was targeted by the spell. I do not know of any exceptions to this, and I don't know how there could be any. If it's a non-AoE spell and the spell is cast on a creature, then that creature is the target of the spell. This is how the game is designed, and the authors have been incredibly consistent with writing the spells to conform with this design.
In addition to the above concepts which relate to Ranges and Targeting, there is also the concept of what a spell is "cast at", since this is a phrase that is used as a specific requirement for the War Caster feat. For this, the actual target of the spell effect does not matter at all. Only the location of the point of origin matters since that is what a spell is cast at when it is cast by the spellcaster. The spellcaster initiates the process, typically with some verbal cues and hand gestures, and the magic of the spell moves from there along a clear path to the place where the spell effect originates. This applies to both AoE spells and non-AoE spells which is why all spells with a Range of Self are disqualified from being used with War Caster. It's not because of what the Range of Self spell targets, it's because of what the Range of Self spell is cast at. By rule, it is always cast at the spellcaster.
Range of Self does not appear to automatically make the caster of the spell the Target. While it does seem a reasonable interpretation, in a fairly strict RAW interpretation, Range of Self states "the spell is cast on the spellcaster or (emphasis mine) emanates from them, as specified in the spell."
For a spell to emanate from the spellcaster, the spell must specify this. The mechanism for doing so that is provided by the game is that an Emanation AoE is created whose point of origin is the spellcaster. A quick search through all of the spells that are published in the Basic Rules reveals zero spells which specify that a spell effect emanates from the spellcaster without explicitly creating an Emanation AoE. It's possible that I've missed something, but I doubt it -- this appears to be how the game is designed.
Shillelagh has a range of Self. Do you think it targets the caster or the held club or quarterstaff? Is there a precedence for affecting a creature's equipment being a subset of targeting the creature? Several spells affect one or more targets and their equipment, but what about where you overtly or indirectly select a creature and affect their equipment and not the creature itself?
Shillelagh ends if the caster lets go of the item. True Strike is instantaneous and so there isn't really an opportunity for the effect to end after releasing the item. Magic Stone and Magic Weapon have a range of touch and can be handed off to other characters.
By that definition of "magic effect", everyone should glow with magic since they've almost certainly received magical healing or damage at some point - and their current hit points reflect the ongoing effect of that magic.
No, they wouldn't, because that's not what the word 'effect' means. Current hit points are not an 'effect'
If you want to continue debating this, start a new thread about it
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Try again. There is no effect to detect in the above example, which was the whole point of the example. Detect Magic does not detect things that do not exist.
Maybe you should try again. The spell you described absolutely has a Magical Effect to detect -- it "causes a creature to have the Poisoned condition for 1 minute", with "a series of consequences for what happens to such a creature while it continues to have that Poisoned condition"
Let's use an actual spell with an Instantaneous duration, but a lingering effect, as an example. befuddlement, for instance. If someone failed their initial saving throw against it, a Detect Magic spell would reveal that they were under some kind of Enchantment school magic during the 30-day window before their next saving throw. That's unequivocally both RAW and RAI
Continuing this any further would be derailing on a thread about True Strike, but it seems pretty clear you fundamentally do not understand (or choose not to understand) what specific words and game terms mean. Which would seem to be something of a handicap when engaging in rules discussions
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The example that I was going to bring up is Power Word Stun since the mechanics for that spell have been discussed on these forums before and it's a bit cleaner since that spell description never actually uses the word "effect" anywhere. But we can discuss Befuddlement instead since those mechanics are very similar.
Befuddlement is a spell with an instantaneous duration:
Once a duration for a spell expires, that spell's magic is gone. It no longer exists.
In the case of Befuddlement, what the spell effect actually does when the spell is cast is that it "blasts the mind of a creature". Once the creature's mind has been blasted, that spell effect disappears. It does NOT continue to blast the creature's mind -- that's not what the spell says. Once this happens to a creature's mind (instantaneously), that mind has become damaged. It now takes a while for such a mind to recover back to full health. The "effect" that the spell description refers to is not the spell effect (after all, the spell effect has disappeared). It is the effect of having a damaged mind. That effect is not magical although it does persist on an ongoing basis. As such, Detect Magic will not detect any magic here. Dispel Magic would run into the same problem -- there is nothing to dispel.
The point of all of this is to make it clear that not all information given in every spell description is a description of the actual spell effect that is created by the casting of the spell or a description of that spell effect interacting with / affecting / targeting a creature that is mentioned somewhere in that text. Sometimes certain portions of the text are just providing additional restrictions, procedures, ongoing consequences, other additional useful information or even flavor text.
In the case of True Strike, the attack that is described is explicitly not a Spell Attack -- it is an attack with a weapon. This attack occurs as a consequence of casting the spell, but the spell effect for True Strike does NOT actually target the creature that is being attacked. The spell simply enables this attack to occur. The spellcaster is targeting that creature when he makes that attack.
You argue they are not the same and that we have plenty of context. That is actually a part of the reason I chose this particular example.
In this case, it is likewise context that make the listener (or reader) initially assume that the elephant can't be the one in the pajamas. Elephants are too big to fit into a normal pair of pajamas. Elephants are the wrong shape. If you make something the right size and shape, is it still really a pair of pajamas?
All sorts of arguments concerning context can be made by someone about how the sentence could not mean that the elephant was the one in the pajamas, and that there is only a single possible correct interpretation.
And naturally, those arguments would be wrong, because Groucho Marx did mean that the elephant was the one in the pajamas. When we start digging too deep to determine an interpretation, we can forget that the speaker might make an error or be using some sort of shorthand (e.g., the elephant wasn't literally in pajamas because, by definition, pajamas must be a certain shape that precludes an elephant, so when the speaker said 'pajamas' they really meant 'something pajama like, but which an elephant could fit into'.)
Range of Self does not appear to automatically make the caster of the spell the Target. While it does seem a reasonable interpretation, in a fairly strict RAW interpretation, Range of Self states "the spell is cast on the spellcaster or (emphasis mine) emanates from them, as specified in the spell." Thus, a possible interpretation is that True Strike is emanating from the caster to the Target that is attacked, and having a spell emanating from someone does not, by the strict definitions of Targets, make them a Target (the strict definition requires either a roll to hit them, for them to be given the opportunity for a Saving Throw, or for them to be in some way effected by the spell. There is no explicit statement to indicate that something 'emanating' a spell has to be a Target).
The fact that you can figure out some way to argue that the caster is also the Target in every published spell with a Range of Self is irrelevant. It is like arguing why the elephant couldn't be in the pajamas because you can't find any. Just because you can't find any elephants wearing pajamas doesn't mean it can't occur.
The current definitions, as they stand, make it possible that a spell with a Range of Self doesn't Target the caster.
Once again, please note that I am not saying that the caster cannot be Targeted by the spell. I actually like to think of it as the spell working that way (and removing the ability for a Spell Focus to add to the roll, though I then bend strict interpretations with a houserule that allows Reactive Caster to be used). I am simply trying to point out to you that it is probably inadvisable to take the position that the caster must be Targeted by the spell and that your interpretation is the only one possible.
LOL, no. One final time:
Magical Effect
Detect Magic
The duration of the spell cast is not mentioned in either the Glossary definition of Magical Effect, or in Detect Magic, and is irrelevant. You are flat wrong
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)
Respectfully, you've completely missed the point that I was making in response to this example.
Too often, people make the mistake of taking a super myopic view of the rules that they are analyzing for interpretation -- trying to look up definitions word by word or examining a single phrase or sentence in a vacuum and deciding that it must mean a certain thing based only on what those individual words or phrases mean. Instead, particularly with spell descriptions, we need to read and analyze the entire spell description (including the parameters) together as one broad concept. We also need to be aware of a great many general rules of the game which will inform how the information in the spell description should be interpreted.
In the case of True Strike, we should not just look at "Guided by a flash of magical insight . . ." and then stop there and ask, ok, what does that mean? Is that flavor text? Is that someone being targeted to have this happen? Is that something else entirely? Who knows! In a sense, given only that information the statement is ambiguous. Just like your elephant example is ambiguous. Sure, in the elephant example people might bring some of their own background knowledge about what an elephant is and what pajamas are to help them come up with the most likely interpretation. But, linguistically, taken in a vacuum, that elephant statement is ambiguous. If we approach our analysis of True Strike in the same manner, using only that information, then of course we'll be left with a feeling that it's ambiguous.
But that would be foolishly ignoring all of the rest of the information that is available to us which would help us to correctly determine the meaning. Information such as the Range of the spell. The duration of the spell. The material component of the spell in this case is pretty important. The lack of any AoE being created by the effect block of the spell. All of the dozens of general rules for spellcasting and the multitude of relevant rules that are listed in the Rules Glossary. These things matter. These things provide very important clues about what is actually going on with the spell. Again, we don't just examine a single phrase in a vacuum and make random declarations that the statement must be flavor text, or the statement must be mechanically significant. We look at the whole picture.
For a spell to emanate from the spellcaster, the spell must specify this. The mechanism for doing so that is provided by the game is that an Emanation AoE is created whose point of origin is the spellcaster. A quick search through all of the spells that are published in the Basic Rules reveals zero spells which specify that a spell effect emanates from the spellcaster without explicitly creating an Emanation AoE. It's possible that I've missed something, but I doubt it -- this appears to be how the game is designed.
When it comes to spells which affect a creature and which choose a creature as the point of origin for the spell, there are basically two broad categories: AoE spells, and non-AoE spells.
For AoE spells, what you are saying is correct. When a creature is selected as the point of origin of an AoE spell, that creature is not necessarily targeted by the resulting spell effect in the Rules Glossary sense of the term. In fact, the default for many standard AoE shapes is that they do not include the point of origin -- this includes the Cone, Line, Cube and Emanation shapes. For others, such as the sphere, the spell description might explicitly override the default by declaring that the point of origin is not included.
As an aside: The PHB does use the term "target" in a second way -- a way which is not included in the Rules Glossary entry for the term -- to simply describe this selection process of the point of origin. However, I would rule that a creature that is only "targeted" via this second usage of the term does not count towards the total number of creatures that are targeted by the spell for the purposes of determining disqualification from use with the War Caster feat. But again, this distinction only occurs with AoE spells.
As for the second category of spells -- the non-AoE spells -- there is no distinction. When such a spell targets a creature, that creature is the point of origin of the spell effect and that creature is also targeted by the spell effect. Fire Bolt, for example, works like this. That spell is aimed at a creature and is cast onto it. There is no AoE -- only that creature was affected. That creature was targeted by the spell. I do not know of any exceptions to this, and I don't know how there could be any. If it's a non-AoE spell and the spell is cast on a creature, then that creature is the target of the spell. This is how the game is designed, and the authors have been incredibly consistent with writing the spells to conform with this design.
In addition to the above concepts which relate to Ranges and Targeting, there is also the concept of what a spell is "cast at", since this is a phrase that is used as a specific requirement for the War Caster feat. For this, the actual target of the spell effect does not matter at all. Only the location of the point of origin matters since that is what a spell is cast at when it is cast by the spellcaster. The spellcaster initiates the process, typically with some verbal cues and hand gestures, and the magic of the spell moves from there along a clear path to the place where the spell effect originates. This applies to both AoE spells and non-AoE spells which is why all spells with a Range of Self are disqualified from being used with War Caster. It's not because of what the Range of Self spell targets, it's because of what the Range of Self spell is cast at. By rule, it is always cast at the spellcaster.
This is only true for AoE spells. True Strike is NOT an AoE spell.
By that definition of "magic effect", everyone should glow with magic since they've almost certainly received magical healing or damage at some point - and their current hit points reflect the ongoing effect of that magic.
I'm glad it's the final time as hopefully that means that it will only need to be corrected once more.
An effect is only magical if it is (present tense) created by a spell. This means that the spell must be ongoing, hence the discussion about duration. An ongoing spell can cause the spell effect that it creates (when the spell is cast) to linger around in existence for the duration of the spell. When the spell expires, the spell effect ceases to exist. If the spell effect doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist. Any other "effect" that might be discussed is not magical. It's not created by the spell -- it cannot be, since that instance of the spell no longer exists.
In the spell in question, Befuddlement, the "effect" that the spell description refers to is not the spell effect (after all, the spell effect has disappeared). It is the effect of having a damaged mind. That effect is not magical although it does persist on an ongoing basis. As such, Detect Magic will not detect any magic here. Dispel Magic would run into the same problem -- there is nothing to dispel.
This is exactly why I would have preferred to discuss the spell Power Word Stun instead -- to avoid this exact myopic argument which focuses in on a single word in the spell description without context or a proper interpretation of what it means just to cause unnecessary complication.
Power Word Stun:
This is a clean example of a spell description which creates an ongoing non-magical consequence to a creature. No mention of the word "effect" appears anywhere in this spell description. So, we must determine what the spell effect is by examining the spell as a whole . . .
This spell has an Instantaneous Duration. This means that the spell effect originates at the location specified in the description (at the target creature) and lasts for only an instant, then disappears. This spell effect targets the creature by "overwhelming it's mind" during that instant. Being overwhelmed causes the creature to gain the Stunned Condition in that moment. Once that spell effect disappears, the consequence of the creature having its mind overwhelmed is ongoing -- it continues to have the Stunned Condition on an ongoing basis as in this case the mind is unable to instantly recover from the instantaneous assault. Continuing to have this Stunned Condition is not a magical effect. There is no magic affecting the creature or creating any effect during this time period. When the creature makes the next saving throw, you can say that the creature is targeted by some sort of an effect, but that effect is not a magical one. Casting Dispel Magic on this creature will not cure it of its Stunned Condition.
I understand it seems that way, but again, that is a part of why I chose that example. If you do not "foolishly ignore all the rest of the information that is available" then you will be in the position of arguing that the speaker must have meant they were wearing the pajamas, because all the information available leads to the wrong conclusion.
This is a very reasonable assumption, I agree, but it seems to be just an assumption. Can you point to anything in the book that specifies this?
(Incidentally, this is exactly the position I believed last year when I, like you, was insisting that the caster being Targeted was the only possible interpretation, so I understand where you are coming from.)
I cannot find one which specifies that a spell effect emanates from the spellcaster without explicitly creating an Emanation AoE, but I can find one (actually, more than one, but I'm going to use this example for now) that implies that it emanates from the caster without creating an Emanation AoE.
Scrying has a Range of Self, yet the caster is capable of creating an invisible, intangible sensor anywhere on the same plane of existence as them. Now, you can probably come up with your own interpretation where the effect of the spell reaching out to that location from the caster is not an Emanation, but calling it an Emanation, barring something in print that explicitly shows it could not be, is a very reasonable interpretation.
So, if someone can't find something that actually forbids that from being an Emanation (and by that I don't mean they can't find another spell which appears to have an Emanation effect while having a Range of Self and no AoE), they now have no reason to believe that True Strike could not just be an Emanation from the caster to the Target.
I will admit that I believe that Scrying Targets both the caster and the subject, while the argument you are disagreeing with has only the subject ss the Target. However, I am only presenting Scrying to prove that it is possible to have an Emanation coming from a Range of Self spell without an AoE.
That seems a reasonable assumption, but it does not actually seem mandated by the rules.
Shillelagh has a range of Self. Do you think it targets the caster or the held club or quarterstaff? Is there a precedence for affecting a creature's equipment being a subset of targeting the creature? Several spells affect one or more targets and their equipment, but what about where you overtly or indirectly select a creature and affect their equipment and not the creature itself?
Shillelagh ends if the caster lets go of the item. True Strike is instantaneous and so there isn't really an opportunity for the effect to end after releasing the item. Magic Stone and Magic Weapon have a range of touch and can be handed off to other characters.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
No, they wouldn't, because that's not what the word 'effect' means. Current hit points are not an 'effect'
If you want to continue debating this, start a new thread about it
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)