Is it? "Cast at" still remains not officially defined.
The phrase "cast at" does not need a formal definition. The meaning is obvious from the plain English interpretation. When you cast your fishing hook at a particular location in the water, you are making an effort to propel your hook towards and ultimately onto that specific location. When you cast aspersions on someone you are pointing your slander in that person's direction. When you cast a glance at someone you look in their direction. The top dictionary definition for cast is to "cause to move or send forth by throwing". The word "at" in this context implies that you are aiming your effort. So, to "cast [something] at" someone in the literal sense would mean to "throw something at" them.
When it comes to spellcasting, this is clearly referring to the portion of the procedure where the spellcaster is capable of making such a choice as to where to aim the casting of the spell. This happens while the spellcasting is happening but before the spell effect has originated (after which point the spellcaster is no longer in control of the spell effect in general). The point of origin is chosen by the spellcaster by quite literally aiming the spell at the chosen location -- we know that it works like that because this portion of the process is required to have a "Clear Path" between the spellcaster and the point of origin location.
A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate, and the spell’s description specifies which part of the effect is limited by the range.
[...]
Self. The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them, as specified in the spell.
("Emanates from them" is very clearly not just Emanations. Lightning bolt is a range-self spell.
Yes, Lightning Bolt is a Range of Self spell, and it is not an Emanation spell. Instead, it is a Line AoE spell. Indeed, the Lightning Bolt does NOT emanate from the spellcaster. Instead, that spell is cast ON the spellcaster (in more detail, it is cast FROM the spellcaster TO and ONTO the spellcaster along a Clear Path and the spell effect originates at the spellcaster's location), and the rules for AoE spells are followed:
The area determines what the spell targets.
A Line is an area of effect that extends from a point of origin in a straight path along its length and covers an area defined by its width. The effect that creates a Line specifies its length and width.
A Line’s point of origin isn’t included in the area of effect unless its creator decides otherwise.
So, the Lightning Bolt spell is cast at the spellcaster but the spellcaster is not actually targeted by the spell effect since he is not included in the resulting AoE. All AoE spells with a Range of Self function exactly like this, including Emanations.
So, you go to the description of the spell, and it has you picking another creature. That creature is presumptively the one the spell is cast at.
That would be an incorrect presumption. The spell description dictates what the existing spell effect targets, but that has nothing to do with what the spell is cast at when it is being cast (before the spell effect even exists).
FWIW, the spellcasting chapter also uses the word "target" to refer to this portion of the spellcasting process even though that connotation does not align with the Rules Glossary definition of the term "target". But that's probably beyond the scope here. It's probably also beyond the scope that casting Booming Blade actually results in a non-magical attack where the spell effect is not actually interacting with the "target" creature and therefore that creature is not actually a target of the spell. For the purposes of this discussion, I have avoided those particular problems with the spell and have been trying to focus only on the fact that the War Caster feat requires the spell to function in a particular way with respect to what the spell is cast at and Booming Blade very clearly fails to meet that criteria.
All "Range: Self" means here is that you cannot launch the attack that the spell makes from a point that is not you.
Nope. That is absolutely not at all what it means for a spell to have a Range of Self. You've quoted the rule yourself already. A Range of self spell is always cast on the spellcaster or it Emanates from them if that is specified. In other words, the Range restricts where the point of origin is allowed to be located and in the case of a spell with a Range of Self that point of origin is required to be at the spellcaster's location by rule. You cannot cast the spell at anything else.
So, while "cast at" still lacks formal definition, I have to conclude that there's a significantly stronger RAW case that you absolutely can cast the attack cantrips off War Caster.
That's an incorrect conclusion according to the Rules as Written as has already been explained.
Is it? "Cast at" still remains not officially defined.
The phrase "cast at" does not need a formal definition. The meaning is obvious from the plain English interpretation. When you cast your fishing hook at a particular location in the water, you are making an effort to propel your hook towards and ultimately onto that specific location. When you cast aspersions on someone you are pointing your slander in that person's direction. When you cast a glance at someone you look in their direction. The top dictionary definition for cast is to "cause to move or send forth by throwing". The word "at" in this context implies that you are aiming your effort. So, to "cast [something] at" someone in the literal sense would mean to "throw something at" them.
So, a spell is cast at the target?
When it comes to spellcasting, this is clearly referring to the portion of the procedure where the spellcaster is capable of making such a choice as to where to aim the casting of the spell. This happens while the spellcasting is happening but before the spell effect has originated (after which point the spellcaster is no longer in control of the spell effect in general). The point of origin is chosen by the spellcaster by quite literally aiming the spell at the chosen location -- we know that it works like that because this portion of the process is required to have a "Clear Path" between the spellcaster and the point of origin location.
If this is the plain English interpretation, it would make sense if you use it like that in conversation. I would argue that its actual conversational use would more resemble this:
"Lucy, what's BladeMurderWarlock doing?"
"Booming Blade!"
"Who are you casting it at?"
"That orc who's attacking my stupid brother!"
"Okay. Linus, you're up. What are you doing?"
"I'm casting Lightning Bolt at the enemy leader."
"Ok. You do know you're getting Charlie Brown's character in the beam, right?"
All "Range: Self" means here is that you cannot launch the attack that the spell makes from a point that is not you.
Nope. That is absolutely not at all what it means for a spell to have a Range of Self. You've quoted the rule yourself already. A Range of self spell is always cast on the spellcaster or it Emanates from them if that is specified. In other words, the Range restricts where the point of origin is allowed to be located and in the case of a spell with a Range of Self that point of origin is required to be at the spellcaster's location by rule. You cannot cast the spell at anything else.
"In other words, the Range restricts where the point of origin is allowed to be located and in the case of a spell with a Range of Self that point of origin is required to be at the spellcaster's location by rule. "
If you cut out all the "cast at" stuff, that's exactly what I said. For spells that act externally to the caster, range self means the spell originates from the caster. For booming blade, the attack originates from the caster's location.
The phrase "cast at" does not need a formal definition. The meaning is obvious from the plain English interpretation.
The "cast at" phrasing (including the specific "cast a spell at") is only used once in the books, in War Caster. It's not load-bearing; they probably used it to not put any load on the origin/target distinction. The very next sentence ("The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature") clarifies exactly what they mean.
The Range: Self rules use the "cast on" (not "at"!) construct. I think that is also a "one time only" deal. It's still not a formal definition, but if we were so determined, we could, by process of association, say that "cast on" indicates origin but "cast at" indicates target. But this is likely silly and overthinking.
War Caster doesn't allow for the casting of Booming Blade since the spell in question must be cast at the target creature and Booming Blade has a range of self.
Range of self does not negate "cast at the target creature" because, as has been explained, "range" does not mean the target. No one would reasonably say the target of a True Strike or Booming Blade attack in the caster.
Target: 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.
Who was targeted by our Booming Blade attack roll again? It's certainly not "self."
For those saying Booming Blade is an acceptable spell to use with War Caster, would Eyebite also be acceptable?
It's range is Self, it is 1 Action, and can be used to target only the triggering creature. So it would fall under the same acceptability as Booming Blade, as far as I can tell.
Vampiric Touch would also be allowed, as it is 1 Action, and can be used to target only the triggering creature.
Are there any other spells that would fall under the RAW of War Caster that allows the character to make future attacks against other creatures besides the triggering creature?
For those saying Booming Blade is an acceptable spell to use with War Caster, would Eyebite also be acceptable?
It's range is Self, it is 1 Action, and can be used to target only the triggering creature. So it would fall under the same acceptability as Booming Blade, as far as I can tell.
Vampiric Touch would also be allowed, as it is 1 Action, and can be used to target only the triggering creature.
This isn't some "one weird trick!" argument, where people are claiming some clever loophole lets you do things well beyond what the rules would appear to allow.
If anything, it's a "one weird antitrick" argument, where people are arguing that the rules actually disallow something completely in balance that they would appear to allow.
But if you have some case to make about how the arguments being made in favor of single-target attack cantrips that are slightly mechanically weird because they use weapons would permit spells with an undefined number of targets to be cast here, make it. Running out the consequences of a particular line of interpretation to show bad consequences is a valid approach, but you have to actually show them.
For those saying Booming Blade is an acceptable spell to use with War Caster, would Eyebite also be acceptable?
It's range is Self, it is 1 Action, and can be used to target only the triggering creature. So it would fall under the same acceptability as Booming Blade, as far as I can tell.
Vampiric Touch would also be allowed, as it is 1 Action, and can be used to target only the triggering creature.
This isn't some "one weird trick!" argument, where people are claiming some clever loophole lets you do things well beyond what the rules would appear to allow.
If anything, it's a "one weird antitrick" argument, where people are arguing that the rules actually disallow something completely in balance that they would appear to allow.
But if you have some case to make about how the arguments being made in favor of single-target attack cantrips that are slightly mechanically weird because they use weapons would permit spells with an undefined number of targets to be cast here, make it. Running out the consequences of a particular line of interpretation to show bad consequences is a valid approach, but you have to actually show them.
I dunno where I said anything about making an argument. It was a question. I mostly expected answers to the question I asked.
Would those spells be allowed under the same argument that allows Booming Blade to be accepted, and are there any other similar spells that fulfill the War Caster requirement that also allow further targets/effects in later rounds?
Produce Flame is another one that seems to fit, as long as you do the "Attack" part of the spell, after which the spell ends. Just looking for interesting interactions between War Caster and how far you can RAW push the envelope with it.
For those saying Booming Blade is an acceptable spell to use with War Caster, would Eyebite also be acceptable?
It's range is Self, it is 1 Action, and can be used to target only the triggering creature. So it would fall under the same acceptability as Booming Blade, as far as I can tell.
Vampiric Touch would also be allowed, as it is 1 Action, and can be used to target only the triggering creature.
This isn't some "one weird trick!" argument, where people are claiming some clever loophole lets you do things well beyond what the rules would appear to allow.
If anything, it's a "one weird antitrick" argument, where people are arguing that the rules actually disallow something completely in balance that they would appear to allow.
But if you have some case to make about how the arguments being made in favor of single-target attack cantrips that are slightly mechanically weird because they use weapons would permit spells with an undefined number of targets to be cast here, make it. Running out the consequences of a particular line of interpretation to show bad consequences is a valid approach, but you have to actually show them.
I dunno where I said anything about making an argument. It was a question. I mostly expected answers to the question I asked.
Would those spells be allowed under the same argument that allows Booming Blade to be accepted, and are there any other similar spells that fulfill the War Caster requirement that also allow further targets/effects in later rounds?
Produce Flame is another one that seems to fit, as long as you do the "Attack" part of the spell, after which the spell ends. Just looking for interesting interactions between War Caster and how far you can RAW push the envelope with it.
Produce flame does not attack. Produce flame, once cast, gives the option to attack on a future action.
Meanwhile, Eyebite and Vampiric Touch have an undefined number of targets. (As does Produce Flame)
Would those spells be allowed under the same argument that allows Booming Blade to be accepted, and are there any other similar spells that fulfill the War Caster requirement that also allow further targets/effects in later rounds?
Those spells (Eyebite and Vampiric Touch) aren't really the same as Booming Blade, as it concerns War Caster. Booming Blade can only ever have one target per casting.
The better comparison is Green-Flame Blade, which can target a second creature. A few years back (so, for the 2014 version of 5e), Crawford made an unofficial ruling (twitter, I think, and never in the SAC) that you could use Green-Flame Blade with War Caster provided you simply didn't do the second part of the spell that targets something else.
That's not RAW, just a hint of RAI. However, by that logic, you could do Eyebite as long as you forwent attacking anything else, and could do Vampiric Touch as long as you only attacked the same target each time. Actually, by that logic, you could use Fireball (etc) as long as you placed the AoE such that it only targets the creature that provoked (including no targetable objects).
All of those cases are weird edge-cases, and would stay edge-cases because a caster likely wouldn't want to cast those spells as a reaction if they can only get one target...
For those saying Booming Blade is an acceptable spell to use with War Caster, would Eyebite also be acceptable?
It's range is Self, it is 1 Action, and can be used to target only the triggering creature. So it would fall under the same acceptability as Booming Blade, as far as I can tell.
Vampiric Touch would also be allowed, as it is 1 Action, and can be used to target only the triggering creature.
This isn't some "one weird trick!" argument, where people are claiming some clever loophole lets you do things well beyond what the rules would appear to allow.
If anything, it's a "one weird antitrick" argument, where people are arguing that the rules actually disallow something completely in balance that they would appear to allow.
But if you have some case to make about how the arguments being made in favor of single-target attack cantrips that are slightly mechanically weird because they use weapons would permit spells with an undefined number of targets to be cast here, make it. Running out the consequences of a particular line of interpretation to show bad consequences is a valid approach, but you have to actually show them.
I dunno where I said anything about making an argument. It was a question. I mostly expected answers to the question I asked.
Would those spells be allowed under the same argument that allows Booming Blade to be accepted, and are there any other similar spells that fulfill the War Caster requirement that also allow further targets/effects in later rounds?
Produce Flame is another one that seems to fit, as long as you do the "Attack" part of the spell, after which the spell ends. Just looking for interesting interactions between War Caster and how far you can RAW push the envelope with it.
Produce flame does not attack. Produce flame, once cast, gives the option to attack on a future action.
Meanwhile, Eyebite and Vampiric Touch have an undefined number of targets. (As does Produce Flame)
Produce Flame specifically says that "when you cast the spell, or as an action on a later turn..." so it would be the same timing as Booming Blade. You can attack with it on the same action used to cast it.
Produce Flame's mechanics changed significantly in the 2024 update and I think you all are getting confused by quoting different versions of it.
The 2014 version can be used to immediately attack as part of casting the spell (which normally takes an action) or the attack can be made as an action on a later turn (once). The 2024 version is cast as a bonus action and the attack is a separate Magic action that is not part of the casting (but can be done multiple times).
Would those spells be allowed under the same argument that allows Booming Blade to be accepted, and are there any other similar spells that fulfill the War Caster requirement that also allow further targets/effects in later rounds?
Those spells (Eyebite and Vampiric Touch) aren't really the same as Booming Blade, as it concerns War Caster. Booming Blade can only ever have one target per casting.
The better comparison is Green-Flame Blade, which can target a second creature. A few years back (so, for the 2014 version of 5e), Crawford made an unofficial ruling (twitter, I think, and never in the SAC) that you could use Green-Flame Blade with War Caster provided you simply didn't do the second part of the spell that targets something else.
That's not RAW, just a hint of RAI. However, by that logic, you could do Eyebite as long as you forwent attacking anything else, and could do Vampiric Touch as long as you only attacked the same target each time. Actually, by that logic, you could use Fireball (etc) as long as you placed the AoE such that it only targets the creature that provoked (including no targetable objects).
All of those cases are weird edge-cases, and would stay edge-cases because a caster likely wouldn't want to cast those spells as a reaction if they can only get one target...
Not one of JC's finer moments, rules-wise
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) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Produce Flame's mechanics changed significantly in the 2024 update and I think you all are getting confused by quoting different versions of it.
The 2014 version can be used to immediately attack as part of casting the spell (which normally takes an action) or the attack can be made as an action on a later turn. The 2024 version is cast as a bonus action and the attack is a separate Magic action that is not part of the casting (but can be done multiple times).
Yeah, I see. There's no reason Produce Flame (old school) couldn't be used as a war caster OA. It's a 1-action spell with one target.
Produce Flame's mechanics changed significantly in the 2024 update and I think you all are getting confused by quoting different versions of it.
The 2014 version can be used to immediately attack as part of casting the spell (which normally takes an action) or the attack can be made as an action on a later turn. The 2024 version is cast as a bonus action and the attack is a separate Magic action that is not part of the casting (but can be done multiple times).
Oh sorry, I didn't mean to quote any particular version. Is there a new way to tooltip 2014 spells specifically?
But yeah then would the 2014 version work with War Caster?
Produce Flame's mechanics changed significantly in the 2024 update and I think you all are getting confused by quoting different versions of it.
The 2014 version can be used to immediately attack as part of casting the spell (which normally takes an action) or the attack can be made as an action on a later turn. The 2024 version is cast as a bonus action and the attack is a separate Magic action that is not part of the casting (but can be done multiple times).
Oh sorry, I didn't mean to quote any particular version. Is there a new way to tooltip 2014 spells specifically?
But yeah then would the 2014 version work with War Caster?
You can use the “spell” tag for 2014 spells and the “spells” tag for 2024 spells.
I would think the 2014 version would work if you attack with it immediately, yes.
One of the two connotations for the word "target" that is used for spellcasting has to do with determining the point of origin of the spell effect. This is how the word is used within the "Clear Path" rule, for example. This is what the spell is being "cast at".
The other way that the word "target" is used in the 2024 version of the rules can be found within the Rules Glossary definition of "target" -- for spellcasting, this has to do with what the spell effect actually affects.
For some spells, this is the same thing. For example, the Fire Bolt spell directly targets a creature. In other words, the spell is "cast at" (or, "targets") that creature along a Clear Path, causing the spell effect to originate on that creature. Once originated, the spell effect "targets" that same creature by physically interacting with it, causing damage on a hit.
For other spells, this is not the same thing. For example, the Fireball spell does not directly target any creatures -- it indirectly targets them. That spell is "cast at" (or, "targets") a point in space along a Clear Path, causing the spell effect to originate there and then filling a surrounding AoE with the resulting spell effect. Once originated, the spell effect "targets" any and all creatures that are located within that area by physically interacting with them, causing damage based on the result of their saving throws.
In the case of both Booming Blade and Lightning Bolt, creatures are again indirectly targeted. Those spells are "cast at" (they "target") the spellcaster along a Clear Path, causing the spell effect to originate at the spellcaster's location and then filling an AoE with the resulting spell effect. (The fact that Booming Blade creates an AoE is beyond the scope here.) In both cases, the spellcaster is unaffected by the resulting spell effect. (For example, a Line AoE, by default, does not include the point of origin.) Instead, other creatures are affected by ("targeted by") those spell effects after they originate. The manner in which the Booming Blade spell effect interacts with the target creature is unusual but mechanically it's the same idea as what happens with Lightning Bolt.
If you cut out all the "cast at" stuff, that's exactly what I said. For spells that act externally to the caster, range self means the spell originates from the caster. For booming blade, the attack originates from the caster's location.
Actual attacks are really never described like that though. Basically all attacks in the game technically originate from the attacker's location but that distinction is largely irrelevant to the mechanics of making an attack. For example, when I make a longbow attack against an enemy, that attack originates at my location. So what? The important detail is that the longbow weapon that I use to make that attack has ranges of 150 feet and 600 feet, which describe how far away the destination for my attack can be located. The longbow is not described as having a range of "self". Likewise, when a spell is cast, the Range tells us how far away the destination of the spellcasting process can be located. The spell is cast FROM the spellcaster TO (the destination) the point of origin for the spell effect along a Clear Path.
In the case of Booming Blade, the point of origin for the spell effect that is created is required to be located at the spellcaster's location. Then, once the spell effect has taken effect there, the effect block of the spell description explicitly tells us that the attack itself must be made "against one creature within 5 feet of you". This is actually hard-coded directly into the spell description. That clause has nothing to do with the Range of the spell or where the spell was being "cast at" when it was cast. Instead, it describes an attack that is being made as part of the spell effect.
Unfortunately, in the case of Booming Blade, Crawford made some casual but public comments about the new mechanics of the spell right after it was changed via errata and he did a poor job of explaining it so that has contributed to a somewhat widespread misunderstanding about how the spell works mechanically. A lot of the terminology related to this spell has been cleaned up by the 2024 revision of the general rules but that hasn't seemed to help very much for some reason.
Range of self does not negate "cast at the target creature" because, as has been explained, "range" does not mean the target. No one would reasonably say the target of a True Strike or Booming Blade attack in the caster.
Target: 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.
Who was targeted by our Booming Blade attack roll again? It's certainly not "self."
These are correct statements, but the wrong conclusion is being drawn. It is certainly true that the target of the attack described by Booming Blade and by True Strike is not the spellcaster. So what?
The Rules Glossary definition of "target" that you've quoted above is incomplete -- it focuses only on creatures and objects that are being affected by something. So, if you ever have a question about whether or not a particular creature or object is a target, this definition will suffice. However, if you ever have a question about whether or not a particular activity "targets" something, then the above definition is insufficient since it fails to account for targeting things that cannot be categorized as either creatures or objects and fails to account for targeting a point in space. Being able to target a location is an important mechanic within the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule when you "guess the square", for example. The Spells chapter tells us that:
"A spell's description says whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or something else."
and that:
"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."
So, it is clear that the Spells chapter uses the term "target" in two ways -- the determination of the point of origin for the spell effect and also what the resulting spell effect actually affects. That second usage is more in line with the Rules Glossary definition of a target, and the first usage is found within the text for the Clear Path rule.
During the spellcasting procedure, when you are selecting the location of the point of origin for your spell, you are targeting that particular location with your spell by casting the spell at it.
In the case of True Strike, the spellcaster is the target of the spell (but not the target of the resulting attack, obviously). The spell is cast at the spellcaster. The spell is a buff to the spellcaster which enables the spellcaster to immediately make an attack in a manner that is normally impossible.
. . . to use with War Caster, would Eyebite also be acceptable?
. . .
Vampiric Touch would also be allowed, as it is 1 Action, and can be used to target only the triggering creature.
. . .
[Produce Flame] . . .
Eyebite and Vampiric Touch and Produce Flame do not work with War Caster because those spells have a Range of Self and War Caster requires the spell to be cast at the target creature.
One of the two connotations for the word "target" that is used for spellcasting has to do with determining the point of origin of the spell effect. This is how the word is used within the "Clear Path" rule, for example. This is what the spell is being "cast at".
The following is probably the most relevant point made in this entire discussion:
The phrase "cast at" does not need a formal definition. The meaning is obvious from the plain English interpretation.
The "cast at" phrasing (including the specific "cast a spell at") is only used once in the books, in War Caster. It's not load-bearing; they probably used it to not put any load on the origin/target distinction. The very next sentence ("The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature") clarifies exactly what they mean.
Not every piece of language used is a term of art, and trying to make it so leads to weird, convoluted arguments about what ought to be fundamentally simple questions.\
Range of self does not negate "cast at the target creature" because, as has been explained, "range" does not mean the target. No one would reasonably say the target of a True Strike or Booming Blade attack in the caster.
Target: 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.
Who was targeted by our Booming Blade attack roll again? It's certainly not "self."
These are correct statements, but the wrong conclusion is being drawn. It is certainly true that the target of the attack described by Booming Blade and by True Strike is not the spellcaster. So what?
The attack is the primary mechanism of the spell's effect. It's kind of relevant.
The Rules Glossary definition of "target" that you've quoted above is incomplete -- it focuses only on creatures and objects that are being affected by something. So, if you ever have a question about whether or not a particular creature or object is a target, this definition will suffice. However, if you ever have a question about whether or not a particular activity "targets" something, then the above definition is insufficient since it fails to account for targeting things that cannot be categorized as either creatures or objects and fails to account for targeting a point in space. Being able to target a location is an important mechanic within the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule when you "guess the square", for example. The Spells chapter tells us that:
"A spell's description says whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or something else."
Now you mention it, by a strict RAW reading one cannot take potshots with spells at unseen creatures. Most single-target spells target only creatures, not spaces that may or may not contain a creature. And yet...
. . . to use with War Caster, would Eyebite also be acceptable?
. . .
Vampiric Touch would also be allowed, as it is 1 Action, and can be used to target only the triggering creature.
. . .
[Produce Flame] . . .
Eyebite and Vampiric Touch and Produce Flame do not work with War Caster because those spells have a Range of Self and War Caster requires the spell to be cast at the target creature.
Correct answer, wrong reason. Eyebite, new Produce Flame, and Vampiric Touch do not target only one creature, and are thus ineligible. (They target an undefined number of creatures.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The phrase "cast at" does not need a formal definition. The meaning is obvious from the plain English interpretation. When you cast your fishing hook at a particular location in the water, you are making an effort to propel your hook towards and ultimately onto that specific location. When you cast aspersions on someone you are pointing your slander in that person's direction. When you cast a glance at someone you look in their direction. The top dictionary definition for cast is to "cause to move or send forth by throwing". The word "at" in this context implies that you are aiming your effort. So, to "cast [something] at" someone in the literal sense would mean to "throw something at" them.
When it comes to spellcasting, this is clearly referring to the portion of the procedure where the spellcaster is capable of making such a choice as to where to aim the casting of the spell. This happens while the spellcasting is happening but before the spell effect has originated (after which point the spellcaster is no longer in control of the spell effect in general). The point of origin is chosen by the spellcaster by quite literally aiming the spell at the chosen location -- we know that it works like that because this portion of the process is required to have a "Clear Path" between the spellcaster and the point of origin location.
That is absolutely 100% false.
Yes, Lightning Bolt is a Range of Self spell, and it is not an Emanation spell. Instead, it is a Line AoE spell. Indeed, the Lightning Bolt does NOT emanate from the spellcaster. Instead, that spell is cast ON the spellcaster (in more detail, it is cast FROM the spellcaster TO and ONTO the spellcaster along a Clear Path and the spell effect originates at the spellcaster's location), and the rules for AoE spells are followed:
So, the Lightning Bolt spell is cast at the spellcaster but the spellcaster is not actually targeted by the spell effect since he is not included in the resulting AoE. All AoE spells with a Range of Self function exactly like this, including Emanations.
That would be an incorrect presumption. The spell description dictates what the existing spell effect targets, but that has nothing to do with what the spell is cast at when it is being cast (before the spell effect even exists).
FWIW, the spellcasting chapter also uses the word "target" to refer to this portion of the spellcasting process even though that connotation does not align with the Rules Glossary definition of the term "target". But that's probably beyond the scope here. It's probably also beyond the scope that casting Booming Blade actually results in a non-magical attack where the spell effect is not actually interacting with the "target" creature and therefore that creature is not actually a target of the spell. For the purposes of this discussion, I have avoided those particular problems with the spell and have been trying to focus only on the fact that the War Caster feat requires the spell to function in a particular way with respect to what the spell is cast at and Booming Blade very clearly fails to meet that criteria.
Nope. That is absolutely not at all what it means for a spell to have a Range of Self. You've quoted the rule yourself already. A Range of self spell is always cast on the spellcaster or it Emanates from them if that is specified. In other words, the Range restricts where the point of origin is allowed to be located and in the case of a spell with a Range of Self that point of origin is required to be at the spellcaster's location by rule. You cannot cast the spell at anything else.
That's an incorrect conclusion according to the Rules as Written as has already been explained.
So, a spell is cast at the target?
If this is the plain English interpretation, it would make sense if you use it like that in conversation. I would argue that its actual conversational use would more resemble this:
"In other words, the Range restricts where the point of origin is allowed to be located and in the case of a spell with a Range of Self that point of origin is required to be at the spellcaster's location by rule. "
If you cut out all the "cast at" stuff, that's exactly what I said. For spells that act externally to the caster, range self means the spell originates from the caster. For booming blade, the attack originates from the caster's location.
The "cast at" phrasing (including the specific "cast a spell at") is only used once in the books, in War Caster. It's not load-bearing; they probably used it to not put any load on the origin/target distinction. The very next sentence ("The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature") clarifies exactly what they mean.
The Range: Self rules use the "cast on" (not "at"!) construct. I think that is also a "one time only" deal. It's still not a formal definition, but if we were so determined, we could, by process of association, say that "cast on" indicates origin but "cast at" indicates target. But this is likely silly and overthinking.
Range of self does not negate "cast at the target creature" because, as has been explained, "range" does not mean the target. No one would reasonably say the target of a True Strike or Booming Blade attack in the caster.
Target: 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.
Who was targeted by our Booming Blade attack roll again? It's certainly not "self."
Unless you target yourself with the cantrip (which I don't recommend)
PS. I agree with your explanation.
For those saying Booming Blade is an acceptable spell to use with War Caster, would Eyebite also be acceptable?
It's range is Self, it is 1 Action, and can be used to target only the triggering creature. So it would fall under the same acceptability as Booming Blade, as far as I can tell.
Vampiric Touch would also be allowed, as it is 1 Action, and can be used to target only the triggering creature.
Are there any other spells that would fall under the RAW of War Caster that allows the character to make future attacks against other creatures besides the triggering creature?
This isn't some "one weird trick!" argument, where people are claiming some clever loophole lets you do things well beyond what the rules would appear to allow.
If anything, it's a "one weird antitrick" argument, where people are arguing that the rules actually disallow something completely in balance that they would appear to allow.
But if you have some case to make about how the arguments being made in favor of single-target attack cantrips that are slightly mechanically weird because they use weapons would permit spells with an undefined number of targets to be cast here, make it. Running out the consequences of a particular line of interpretation to show bad consequences is a valid approach, but you have to actually show them.
I dunno where I said anything about making an argument. It was a question. I mostly expected answers to the question I asked.
Would those spells be allowed under the same argument that allows Booming Blade to be accepted, and are there any other similar spells that fulfill the War Caster requirement that also allow further targets/effects in later rounds?
Produce Flame is another one that seems to fit, as long as you do the "Attack" part of the spell, after which the spell ends. Just looking for interesting interactions between War Caster and how far you can RAW push the envelope with it.
Produce flame does not attack. Produce flame, once cast, gives the option to attack on a future action.
Meanwhile, Eyebite and Vampiric Touch have an undefined number of targets. (As does Produce Flame)
Those spells (Eyebite and Vampiric Touch) aren't really the same as Booming Blade, as it concerns War Caster. Booming Blade can only ever have one target per casting.
The better comparison is Green-Flame Blade, which can target a second creature. A few years back (so, for the 2014 version of 5e), Crawford made an unofficial ruling (twitter, I think, and never in the SAC) that you could use Green-Flame Blade with War Caster provided you simply didn't do the second part of the spell that targets something else.
That's not RAW, just a hint of RAI. However, by that logic, you could do Eyebite as long as you forwent attacking anything else, and could do Vampiric Touch as long as you only attacked the same target each time. Actually, by that logic, you could use Fireball (etc) as long as you placed the AoE such that it only targets the creature that provoked (including no targetable objects).
All of those cases are weird edge-cases, and would stay edge-cases because a caster likely wouldn't want to cast those spells as a reaction if they can only get one target...
Produce Flame specifically says that "when you cast the spell, or as an action on a later turn..." so it would be the same timing as Booming Blade. You can attack with it on the same action used to cast it.
Produce Flame's mechanics changed significantly in the 2024 update and I think you all are getting confused by quoting different versions of it.
The 2014 version can be used to immediately attack as part of casting the spell (which normally takes an action) or the attack can be made as an action on a later turn (once). The 2024 version is cast as a bonus action and the attack is a separate Magic action that is not part of the casting (but can be done multiple times).
pronouns: he/she/they
Not one of JC's finer moments, rules-wise
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yeah, I see. There's no reason Produce Flame (old school) couldn't be used as a war caster OA. It's a 1-action spell with one target.
Oh sorry, I didn't mean to quote any particular version. Is there a new way to tooltip 2014 spells specifically?
But yeah then would the 2014 version work with War Caster?
You can use the “spell” tag for 2014 spells and the “spells” tag for 2024 spells.
I would think the 2014 version would work if you attack with it immediately, yes.
pronouns: he/she/they
One of the two connotations for the word "target" that is used for spellcasting has to do with determining the point of origin of the spell effect. This is how the word is used within the "Clear Path" rule, for example. This is what the spell is being "cast at".
The other way that the word "target" is used in the 2024 version of the rules can be found within the Rules Glossary definition of "target" -- for spellcasting, this has to do with what the spell effect actually affects.
For some spells, this is the same thing. For example, the Fire Bolt spell directly targets a creature. In other words, the spell is "cast at" (or, "targets") that creature along a Clear Path, causing the spell effect to originate on that creature. Once originated, the spell effect "targets" that same creature by physically interacting with it, causing damage on a hit.
For other spells, this is not the same thing. For example, the Fireball spell does not directly target any creatures -- it indirectly targets them. That spell is "cast at" (or, "targets") a point in space along a Clear Path, causing the spell effect to originate there and then filling a surrounding AoE with the resulting spell effect. Once originated, the spell effect "targets" any and all creatures that are located within that area by physically interacting with them, causing damage based on the result of their saving throws.
In the case of both Booming Blade and Lightning Bolt, creatures are again indirectly targeted. Those spells are "cast at" (they "target") the spellcaster along a Clear Path, causing the spell effect to originate at the spellcaster's location and then filling an AoE with the resulting spell effect. (The fact that Booming Blade creates an AoE is beyond the scope here.) In both cases, the spellcaster is unaffected by the resulting spell effect. (For example, a Line AoE, by default, does not include the point of origin.) Instead, other creatures are affected by ("targeted by") those spell effects after they originate. The manner in which the Booming Blade spell effect interacts with the target creature is unusual but mechanically it's the same idea as what happens with Lightning Bolt.
Actual attacks are really never described like that though. Basically all attacks in the game technically originate from the attacker's location but that distinction is largely irrelevant to the mechanics of making an attack. For example, when I make a longbow attack against an enemy, that attack originates at my location. So what? The important detail is that the longbow weapon that I use to make that attack has ranges of 150 feet and 600 feet, which describe how far away the destination for my attack can be located. The longbow is not described as having a range of "self". Likewise, when a spell is cast, the Range tells us how far away the destination of the spellcasting process can be located. The spell is cast FROM the spellcaster TO (the destination) the point of origin for the spell effect along a Clear Path.
In the case of Booming Blade, the point of origin for the spell effect that is created is required to be located at the spellcaster's location. Then, once the spell effect has taken effect there, the effect block of the spell description explicitly tells us that the attack itself must be made "against one creature within 5 feet of you". This is actually hard-coded directly into the spell description. That clause has nothing to do with the Range of the spell or where the spell was being "cast at" when it was cast. Instead, it describes an attack that is being made as part of the spell effect.
Unfortunately, in the case of Booming Blade, Crawford made some casual but public comments about the new mechanics of the spell right after it was changed via errata and he did a poor job of explaining it so that has contributed to a somewhat widespread misunderstanding about how the spell works mechanically. A lot of the terminology related to this spell has been cleaned up by the 2024 revision of the general rules but that hasn't seemed to help very much for some reason.
These are correct statements, but the wrong conclusion is being drawn. It is certainly true that the target of the attack described by Booming Blade and by True Strike is not the spellcaster. So what?
The Rules Glossary definition of "target" that you've quoted above is incomplete -- it focuses only on creatures and objects that are being affected by something. So, if you ever have a question about whether or not a particular creature or object is a target, this definition will suffice. However, if you ever have a question about whether or not a particular activity "targets" something, then the above definition is insufficient since it fails to account for targeting things that cannot be categorized as either creatures or objects and fails to account for targeting a point in space. Being able to target a location is an important mechanic within the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule when you "guess the square", for example. The Spells chapter tells us that:
"A spell's description says whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or something else."
and that:
"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."
So, it is clear that the Spells chapter uses the term "target" in two ways -- the determination of the point of origin for the spell effect and also what the resulting spell effect actually affects. That second usage is more in line with the Rules Glossary definition of a target, and the first usage is found within the text for the Clear Path rule.
During the spellcasting procedure, when you are selecting the location of the point of origin for your spell, you are targeting that particular location with your spell by casting the spell at it.
In the case of True Strike, the spellcaster is the target of the spell (but not the target of the resulting attack, obviously). The spell is cast at the spellcaster. The spell is a buff to the spellcaster which enables the spellcaster to immediately make an attack in a manner that is normally impossible.
Eyebite and Vampiric Touch and Produce Flame do not work with War Caster because those spells have a Range of Self and War Caster requires the spell to be cast at the target creature.
The following is probably the most relevant point made in this entire discussion:
Not every piece of language used is a term of art, and trying to make it so leads to weird, convoluted arguments about what ought to be fundamentally simple questions.\
The attack is the primary mechanism of the spell's effect. It's kind of relevant.
Now you mention it, by a strict RAW reading one cannot take potshots with spells at unseen creatures. Most single-target spells target only creatures, not spaces that may or may not contain a creature. And yet...
Correct answer, wrong reason. Eyebite, new Produce Flame, and Vampiric Touch do not target only one creature, and are thus ineligible. (They target an undefined number of creatures.)