Can you find language that SAYS any creature effected by a spell is a target? Because that’s not how the Spellcasting section defines the term, and playing that way makes Entangle a spell that might “target only one creature,” so you sure you want to lean into that interpretation?
“A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).”
That language tells us that the “target” is the creature, object, or point of origin” the spell is cast at. For GFB, that’s one creature you make a melee attack against. The “second creature” is never called a target by the spell description, and even if they were, they’re a target of the spell’s subsequent effect, not of the spell’s casting.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Did I? I’m pretty sure I’ve always though Ice Knife could be twinned, though I recognize that 5E uses the term inconsistently so that we’re forced to pick between RAW1, RAW2, and RAI. I think ultimately more worm cans are opened by expanding the concept of target to creatures effected, than by keeping it limited to the targets of spells as described in spellcasting section.
With Entangle, you wouldn't be able to use it with War Caster anyway as you would also be a target of the spell's effect.
I don't think there's any inconsistency, but it certainly can look very confusing (just look at my own past posts in those other threads; I was certainly confused back then)--which is why I would wholeheartedly support an errata, for perfect clarity, like they did with Twinned Spell.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Why would you have to paint the Entangle in a way that catches yourself? If it all it takes for a spell to "target one creature" is to "effect one creature," just about every terrain-painting area-effect spell in the game becomes a potential single-target spell. Hell, Goodberry becomes a spell that "targets one creature" under that interpretation, assuming only one creature eats berries. Magic Stone becomes a spell that "targets one creature" as soon as you throw a rock at a critter.
These don't make sense, of course those spells don't target creatures, they target objects, and only have lingering spell effects which later interact with one or more creature! But if "target a creature" starts being read as "effects a creature", no end of stupid consequences emerge. We can easily draw a bright line between Eldritch Blast and Green-Flame Blade, but if we choose not to, no room remains to draw any line between Green-Flame Blade and Entangle. Either a "target" is the target when the spell is cast only, and not later effected creatures, or "target" becomes so expansive as to be almost meaningless.
The rules do not treat this consistently, it isn't a matter of "the RAW says x." Fireball, for example, is very clearly a spell which targets a point within range, not one or more creatures. And yet, the spell description of Fireball calls creatures caught in the explosion "targets." This sucks, and needs errata. But from where we sit, while the rules are currently left in a state where "target" means different things at different times, we nevertheless have the strength to put our foot down and say "when a feature keys off of the "target" of a spell, best practice is to just look at the target of the spell, not the target of the later effects of the spell."
You would necessarily be within the spell's effect as the target would have to be within 5-10 feet of yourself. You'd be at the edge, but I don't think there's a way you could position Entangle such that you wouldn't also be inside of it. If you can, I see no reason why you couldn't cast it.
There's no inconsistency: creatures affected by a spell are targets of the spell. If the spell in question would affect only the creature which provoked the OA, and has a casting time of 1 action, it is eligible for use with War Caster.
Again, I agree that an errata would be highly-welcome for this. I do not like having a feature with ambiguous applications, and I believe it would make far more sense to have War Caster follow the exact same restrictions as Twinned Spell. RAW, it doesn't. RAI, it doesn't. RAL (Rules As Logical :P), it ought to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Why would you need to center the Entangle on the enemy? You're arguing that it "targets" them so long as they're effected by it, and you could effect them with it by casting it on a point that is 10 feet behind them as they step into your reach without it covering your own square. Apparently where you cast the spell is irrelevant to what it "targets"?
I don't have rules or tweets to back it up, but maybe "a creature that is targeted with an attack roll or must make a saving throw" would be a good definition for "target creature"?
For Green Flame Blade the second creature is not attacked with an attack roll and doesn't have to make a saving throw, so it's not a target of the spell.
For Ice Knife the surrounding creatures must make a Saving Throw and thus are targets of the spell.
For Eldritch Blast as long as all beams are made against a single enemy, only that enemy is a target. If you make an attack roll against another enemy, the spell has two targets and doesn't qualify for Warcaster anymore.
I don't have rules or tweets to back it up, but maybe "a creature that is targeted with an attack roll or must make a saving throw" would be a good definition for "target creature"?
For Green Flame Blade the second creature is not attacked with an attack roll and doesn't have to make a saving throw, so it's not a target of the spell.
For Ice Knife the surrounding creatures must make a Saving Throw and thus are targets of the spell.
For Eldritch Blast as long as all beams are made against a single enemy, only that enemy is a target. If you make an attack roll against another enemy, the spell has two targets and doesn't qualify for Warcaster anymore.
No, it affects a creature regardless of whether there is a roll for them or not. If there is a second target, it cannot be cast with War Caster.
CC, I see what you're getting at now, but the point remains unchanged: you must target only the creature provoking the OA. Entangle lets you put your point of origin anywhere within range, but there is also nothing preventing your point of origin & the target creature from being one-in-the-same. Thus, if you were to cast Entangle with War Caster, then your point of origin is being chosen for you--where the creature is.
[edit] and if there is any other creature within the area of the spell, from the point of origin being chosen for you, then it is invalid for use with War Caster. There's no paradox; it's simply following the restrictions.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I don't have rules or tweets to back it up, but maybe "a creature that is targeted with an attack roll or must make a saving throw" would be a good definition for "target creature"?
For Green Flame Blade the second creature is not attacked with an attack roll and doesn't have to make a saving throw, so it's not a target of the spell.
For Ice Knife the surrounding creatures must make a Saving Throw and thus are targets of the spell.
For Eldritch Blast as long as all beams are made against a single enemy, only that enemy is a target. If you make an attack roll against another enemy, the spell has two targets and doesn't qualify for Warcaster anymore.
Lots of spells affect targets without an attack roll or saving throw. Easy example would be Magic Missile.
I hate to add to an older thread but it seems the intention of the wording should be that you cannot target any other creature than the one leaving your OA area. So spells that can be up-cast like hold person/charm person couldn't be used to grab additional targets. It is a reaction so you only have time to focus on that one creature. Personally whether the spell ends up affecting multiple "targets" should not be taken into account as long as it can be directed only at the single target. How often would a fireball/large AOE spell be useful in that situation? You would definitely hit yourself and could end up hitting your own party members with the blast or effect.
Take a look at chain lightning: It targets only 1 person and then leaps to another target within range at your discretion. Now as a GM I wouldn't allow the additional target choices or maybe would roll randomly to see who it affected after the first but you could certainly choose that first target. You don't have the time to calculate the additional targets in your reaction which is what I think the point of the feat is in limiting you to a single target.
I hate to add to an older thread but it seems the intention of the wording should be that you cannot target any other creature than the one leaving your OA area. So spells that can be up-cast like hold person/charm person couldn't be used to grab additional targets. It is a reaction so you only have time to focus on that one creature. Personally whether the spell ends up affecting multiple "targets" should not be taken into account as long as it can be directed only at the single target. How often would a fireball/large AOE spell be useful in that situation? You would definitely hit yourself and could end up hitting your own party members with the blast or effect.
Take a look at chain lightning: It targets only 1 person and then leaps to another target within range at your discretion. Now as a GM I wouldn't allow the additional target choices or maybe would roll randomly to see who it affected after the first but you could certainly choose that first target. You don't have the time to calculate the additional targets in your reaction which is what I think the point of the feat is in limiting you to a single target.
The requirement is that it only targets the one dude, not that it is only capable of targeting the one dude. Many people mix up Warcaster with Twin Spell metamagic. See:
Warcaster:
The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature.
Twin Spell:
When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and .... To be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level. For example, magic missile and scorching ray aren’t eligible, but ray of frost and chromatic orb are.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
We've literally already had this discussion in the past (more than once), where you have consistently argued that "Affected by spell" = "Target of spell", and I have since come around to understanding the truth of that. Why would you backslide on this?
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Did I? I’m pretty sure I’ve always though Ice Knife could be twinned, though I recognize that 5E uses the term inconsistently so that we’re forced to pick between RAW1, RAW2, and RAI. I think ultimately more worm cans are opened by expanding the concept of target to creatures effected, than by keeping it limited to the targets of spells as described in spellcasting section.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
With Entangle, you wouldn't be able to use it with War Caster anyway as you would also be a target of the spell's effect.
I don't think there's any inconsistency, but it certainly can look very confusing (just look at my own past posts in those other threads; I was certainly confused back then)--which is why I would wholeheartedly support an errata, for perfect clarity, like they did with Twinned Spell.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Why would you have to paint the Entangle in a way that catches yourself? If it all it takes for a spell to "target one creature" is to "effect one creature," just about every terrain-painting area-effect spell in the game becomes a potential single-target spell. Hell, Goodberry becomes a spell that "targets one creature" under that interpretation, assuming only one creature eats berries. Magic Stone becomes a spell that "targets one creature" as soon as you throw a rock at a critter.
These don't make sense, of course those spells don't target creatures, they target objects, and only have lingering spell effects which later interact with one or more creature! But if "target a creature" starts being read as "effects a creature", no end of stupid consequences emerge. We can easily draw a bright line between Eldritch Blast and Green-Flame Blade, but if we choose not to, no room remains to draw any line between Green-Flame Blade and Entangle. Either a "target" is the target when the spell is cast only, and not later effected creatures, or "target" becomes so expansive as to be almost meaningless.
The rules do not treat this consistently, it isn't a matter of "the RAW says x." Fireball, for example, is very clearly a spell which targets a point within range, not one or more creatures. And yet, the spell description of Fireball calls creatures caught in the explosion "targets." This sucks, and needs errata. But from where we sit, while the rules are currently left in a state where "target" means different things at different times, we nevertheless have the strength to put our foot down and say "when a feature keys off of the "target" of a spell, best practice is to just look at the target of the spell, not the target of the later effects of the spell."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You would necessarily be within the spell's effect as the target would have to be within 5-10 feet of yourself. You'd be at the edge, but I don't think there's a way you could position Entangle such that you wouldn't also be inside of it. If you can, I see no reason why you couldn't cast it.
There's no inconsistency: creatures affected by a spell are targets of the spell. If the spell in question would affect only the creature which provoked the OA, and has a casting time of 1 action, it is eligible for use with War Caster.
Again, I agree that an errata would be highly-welcome for this. I do not like having a feature with ambiguous applications, and I believe it would make far more sense to have War Caster follow the exact same restrictions as Twinned Spell. RAW, it doesn't. RAI, it doesn't. RAL (Rules As Logical :P), it ought to.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Why would you need to center the Entangle on the enemy? You're arguing that it "targets" them so long as they're effected by it, and you could effect them with it by casting it on a point that is 10 feet behind them as they step into your reach without it covering your own square. Apparently where you cast the spell is irrelevant to what it "targets"?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I don't have rules or tweets to back it up, but maybe "a creature that is targeted with an attack roll or must make a saving throw" would be a good definition for "target creature"?
For Green Flame Blade the second creature is not attacked with an attack roll and doesn't have to make a saving throw, so it's not a target of the spell.
For Ice Knife the surrounding creatures must make a Saving Throw and thus are targets of the spell.
For Eldritch Blast as long as all beams are made against a single enemy, only that enemy is a target. If you make an attack roll against another enemy, the spell has two targets and doesn't qualify for Warcaster anymore.
No, it affects a creature regardless of whether there is a roll for them or not. If there is a second target, it cannot be cast with War Caster.
CC, I see what you're getting at now, but the point remains unchanged: you must target only the creature provoking the OA. Entangle lets you put your point of origin anywhere within range, but there is also nothing preventing your point of origin & the target creature from being one-in-the-same. Thus, if you were to cast Entangle with War Caster, then your point of origin is being chosen for you--where the creature is.
[edit] and if there is any other creature within the area of the spell, from the point of origin being chosen for you, then it is invalid for use with War Caster. There's no paradox; it's simply following the restrictions.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Lots of spells affect targets without an attack roll or saving throw. Easy example would be Magic Missile.
I hate to add to an older thread but it seems the intention of the wording should be that you cannot target any other creature than the one leaving your OA area. So spells that can be up-cast like hold person/charm person couldn't be used to grab additional targets. It is a reaction so you only have time to focus on that one creature. Personally whether the spell ends up affecting multiple "targets" should not be taken into account as long as it can be directed only at the single target. How often would a fireball/large AOE spell be useful in that situation? You would definitely hit yourself and could end up hitting your own party members with the blast or effect.
Take a look at chain lightning: It targets only 1 person and then leaps to another target within range at your discretion. Now as a GM I wouldn't allow the additional target choices or maybe would roll randomly to see who it affected after the first but you could certainly choose that first target. You don't have the time to calculate the additional targets in your reaction which is what I think the point of the feat is in limiting you to a single target.
The requirement is that it only targets the one dude, not that it is only capable of targeting the one dude. Many people mix up Warcaster with Twin Spell metamagic. See:
Warcaster:
Twin Spell:
When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and .... To be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level. For example, magic missile and scorching ray aren’t eligible, but ray of frost and chromatic orb are.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
L