So most folks think the smite-like spells don't work well because the spell looks for the first time an attack hits. I'm still on the fence on that. But let's say that's the case. How about something like Thunderclap cantrip (you could get this from a single dip multiclass or magic initiate feat)?
So most folks think the smite-like spells don't work well because the spell looks for the first time an attack hits. I'm still on the fence on that. But let's say that's the case. How about something like Thunderclap cantrip (you could get this from a single dip multiclass or magic initiate feat)?
Interesting thing with that though is does your steed take damage. Probably not RAW but I would rule that any affect that exempts you also exempts your steed (as a converse to a spell that affects only you also affects your steed.)
Interesting thing with that though is does your steed take damage. Probably not RAW but I would rule that any affect that exempts you also exempts your steed (as a converse to a spell that affects only you also affects your steed.)
RAW, yes, your steed would also have to make a save.
So most folks think the smite-like spells don't work well because the spell looks for the first time an attack hits. I'm still on the fence on that. But let's say that's the case. How about something like Thunderclap cantrip (you could get this from a single dip multiclass or magic initiate feat)?
This just happens when cast. A AoE would erupt from both the ranger and beast, yes?
Thunderclap does not target a single creature, so can never target only the caster. That spell is not valid for this purpose.
Ok. Sorry for the confusion again. I’m specifically talking about the beast master ranger ability that does NOT say only one creature targeted by the spell. The paladin spell find steed has that restriction only.
Beginning at 15th level, when you cast a spell targeting yourself, you can also affect your beast companion with the spell if the beast is within 30 feet of you.
Dude, the literal range on Thunderous Smite is “Self.” How is that ambiguous?!? And I don’t care what JC tweets, if they want to errata those spells to change the range from “self” they can go right ahead, but until they do, I’m not buying it.
Fireball targets a location, and the effect targets anyone within that location. This is not a new concept; Thunderous Smite targets more than just yourself.
But in this instance, for Find Steed? The RAI there is clearly intended that any spell you've cast on yourself will also be cast on your Steed, so a Smite -type spell that you carry a charge on, I would have no qualms about giving to the steed too.
Find Steed explicitly requires that the spell being cast only targets the Paladin, so it is very intentional that the Smite line of spells are not eligible. They are eligible for use with the Beast Master Ranger's 15th level feature, yet as I noted earlier the mount summoned by Find Steed is entirely ineligible to also be a Ranger's Companion.
That still doesn't change much... they're still not eligible for use with Find Steed, but okay with Share Spells. However, the best you're going to get out of it is still one application. I.e., unlikely to provide a strategic advantage outside of niche circumstances, but a decent thing to have in your back pocket.
Sharing spells does not create a duplicate spell for the steed; it only extends the effect from you to include your steed. You wouldn't have two discrete spells in play. You would be concentrating on a single spell, so whichever one of you lands an eligible attack first ends the entire thing for you both. If you also lose concentration on the spell before either of you are able to make an eligible attack, you both lose the spell.
That is what I’m curious about. So if you take the wording in pass without trace...
“A veil of shadows and silence radiates from you, masking you and your companions from detection. For the duration, each creature you choose within 30 feet of you (including you) has a +10 bonus to Dexterity (Stealth) checks and can't be tracked except by magical means.”
...and the wording in ensnaring strike...
”The next time you hit a creature with a weapon attack before this spell ends, a writhing mass of thorny vines appears at the point of impact, and the target must succeed on a Strength saving throw or be restrained by the magical vines until the spell ends.“
If the share spells works for one why not the other? The wording is applied to both targets?
It's because those spells require concentration. When you cast Pass Without Trace, you are concentrating on the spell you've cast, and that spell is providing a benefit to your designated targets. When you lose concentration on your spell, the benefits of the spell end for everyone.
When you are sharing a spell via Find Steed or Share Spells, you are not casting two spells. You are casting one spell, that you use concentration to maintain, and you are extending the effect of the spell to your steed/companion. You have one spell effect going as an umbrella that you are holding up with concentration. Sharing the spell brings your companion under your umbrella; it doesn't create two umbrellas.
The main condition which ends the smite spells is making a successful attack and applying the spell's damage/effect to the target... "The first time you hit with a melee weapon attack during this spell’s duration"; It's one-and-done. You and your companion are under the effect of the same spell, so whichever one of you makes that successful attack ends the spell entirely.
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.
Dude, the literal range on Thunderous Smite is “Self.” How is that ambiguous?!? And I don’t care what JC tweets, if they want to errata those spells to change the range from “self” they can go right ahead, but until they do, I’m not buying it.
Fireball targets a location, and the effect targets anyone within that location. This is not a new concept; Thunderous Smite targets more than just yourself.
Incorrect. The attacks target others, but the spell targets only the caster.
As discussed in the past several times, the PHB unfortunately uses "target" to mean both "the target of the spell" and also in practice "the target of the spell's effect" interchangeably (see e.g. Fireball which targets a point within range but also "targets" the creatures within that area). When target is defined in PHB Section 10, it only defines that term in the sense of "the target of the spell," so it would be reasonable to assume that other features that look for "the target" are generally talking about "the target of the spell" and not "the target of the spell's effect." Room to disagree there, really almost requires a case by case analysis of each feature....
But in this instance, for Find Steed? The RAI there is clearly intended that any spell you've cast on yourself will also be cast on your Steed, so a Smite -type spell that you carry a charge on, I would have no qualms about giving to the steed too. Unlike Sposta, I'd also let both PC and the Steed each get their own use of it on a melee attack, not just one for whichever attacks first.
"The main condition which ends the smite spells is making a successful attack and applying the spell's damage/effect to the target... "The first time you hit with a melee weapon attack during this spell’s duration"; It's one-and-done. You and your companion are under the effect of the same spell, so whichever one of you makes that successful attack ends the spell entirely."
This makes sense. The spell ends two ways: on a hit or end of concentration.
"Sposta already mentioned it, but Thunderclap does not target yourself at all, so that spell is never eligible for use with Shared Spells."
Ok. How about primal savagery or word of radiance? One targets self and the other "erupts from you".
"The main condition which ends the smite spells is making a successful attack and applying the spell's damage/effect to the target... "The first time you hit with a melee weapon attack during this spell’s duration"; It's one-and-done. You and your companion are under the effect of the same spell, so whichever one of you makes that successful attack ends the spell entirely."
This makes sense. The spell ends two ways: on a hit or end of concentration.
"Sposta already mentioned it, but Thunderclap does not target yourself at all, so that spell is never eligible for use with Shared Spells."
Ok. How about primal savagery or word of radiance? One targets self and the other "erupts from you".
Primal Savagery is just as eligible as the Smite Spells. Word of Radiance is an AoE and so therefore ineligible.
Dude, the literal range on Thunderous Smite is “Self.” How is that ambiguous?!? And I don’t care what JC tweets, if they want to errata those spells to change the range from “self” they can go right ahead, but until they do, I’m not buying it.
Fireball targets a location, and the effect targets anyone within that location. This is not a new concept; Thunderous Smite targets more than just yourself.
Incorrect. The attacks target others, but the spell targets only the caster.
Dude, no... everything the spell affects is a target of the spell itself. I know you know this already from the numerous threads about what a spell's "targets" are, and the PHB is clear on this:
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).
Thunderous Smite has two targets: yourself, and the target of your attack. If you count the weapon itself (debatable), there are three targets which the spell affects. This disqualifies it from ever being usable with Find Steed. It is fine to use with the Beast Master's companion at level 15 because the only requirement there is that the spell has to include yourself as a target of it.
Ok. How about primal savagery or word of radiance? One targets self and the other "erupts from you".
No to both for Find Steed. Yes to Primal Savagery with the Beast Master's companion at level 15--which still ends when either of you land the attack--and no to Word of Radiance entirely.
Reality check: outside of niche circumstances allowing you to cast more spells than normal, like Action Surge, you can't double-nuke. The whole magic system of 5e is designed to prevent that, and neither Find Steed nor the Beast Master's feature changes that.
As I've mentioned multiple times now, neither of those features duplicate an entire spell, so let's get on the same page as to what Share Spellsactually does:
Share Spells
Beginning at 15th level, when you cast a spell targeting yourself, you can also affect your beast companion with the spell if the beast is within 30 feet of you.
Affecting something with the spell means that, whatever the effect of the spell is, you apply it to the target.
If you were to cast a direct-damage spell like Fireball on an area that includes yourself (taking damage from it), then you can also affect your companion with the spell.
What is the effect of Fireball? 8d6 fire damage, with a Dex save to potentially take only half damage.
What happens if you choose to affect your companion with the spell? Your companion also takes 8d6 fire damage, with a Dex save to potentially take only half damage.
What is the effect of Cure Wounds? Regain hit points equal to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier.
You can cast this on yourself, so what happens if you choose to affect your companion with the spell? They also regain hit points equal to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier.
Sharing a spell with your companion does not mean the companion gets to act as if they have also cast the spell themselves. It only means the spell's effect also happens to them.
The Smite series of spells exist in a very particular cross-section of spell target interactions which have multi-step effects. It first targets yourself, like a "buff", which is what allows you to share it with a Ranger's Companion (not Find Steed) in the first place. Then the spell applies a damage effect to the target of your (or companion's) next melee attack.
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.
Dude, the literal range on Thunderous Smite is “Self.” How is that ambiguous?!? And I don’t care what JC tweets, if they want to errata those spells to change the range from “self” they can go right ahead, but until they do, I’m not buying it.
Fireball targets a location, and the effect targets anyone within that location. This is not a new concept; Thunderous Smite targets more than just yourself.
Incorrect. The attacks target others, but the spell targets only the caster.
Dude, no... everything the spell affects is a target of the spell itself. I know you know this already from the numerous threads about what a spell's "targets" are, and the PHB is clear on this:
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).
Thunderous Smite has two targets: yourself, and the target of your attack. If you count the weapon itself (debatable), there are three targets which the spell affects. This disqualifies it from ever being usable with Find Steed. It is fine to use with the Beast Master's companion at level 15 because the only requirement there is that the spell has to include yourself as a target of it.
Ok. How about primal savagery or word of radiance? One targets self and the other "erupts from you".
No to both for Find Steed. Yes to Primal Savagery with the Beast Master's companion at level 15--which still ends when either of you land the attack--and no to Word of Radiance entirely.
Reality check: outside of niche circumstances allowing you to cast more spells than normal, like Action Surge, you can't double-nuke. The whole magic system of 5e is designed to prevent that, and neither Find Steed nor the Beast Master's feature changes that.
As I've mentioned multiple times now, neither of those features duplicate an entire spell, so let's get on the same page as to what Share Spellsactually does:
Share Spells
Beginning at 15th level, when you cast a spell targeting yourself, you can also affect your beast companion with the spell if the beast is within 30 feet of you.
Affecting something with the spell means that, whatever the effect of the spell is, you apply it to the target.
If you were to cast a direct-damage spell like Fireball on an area that includes yourself (taking damage from it), then you can also affect your companion with the spell.
What is the effect of Fireball? 8d6 fire damage, with a Dex save to potentially take only half damage.
What happens if you choose to affect your companion with the spell? You companion take 8d6 fire damage, with a Dex save to potentially take only half damage.
What is the effect of Cure Wounds? Regain hit points equal to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier.
You can cast this on yourself, so what happens if you choose to affect your companion with the spell? They also regain hit points equal to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier.
Sharing a spell with your companion does not mean the companion gets to act as if they have also cast the spell themselves. It only means the spell's effect also happens to them.
The Smite series of spells exist in a very particular cross-section of spell target interactions which have multi-step effects. It first targets yourself, like a "buff", which is what allows you to share it with a Ranger's Companion (not Find Steed) in the first place. Then the spell applies a damage effect to the target of your (or companion's) next melee attack.
Yeah. This was the line of thinking I was talking about before, and still not 100% convinced it doesn't work like that (for the ranger version) for these types of spells. Ranger casts the spell, targeting themself. The spell effect is applied to the ranger. The spell effect is applied to the beast as well. I'm on the fence.
Yeah, the Smite spells are wonky. You can use them with your Ranger's Companion, but you don't get anything "extra" out of it since it's still one-and-done.
Go back to the big list of spells I posted at the beginning, and to the one spell I called out specifically: Divine Favor. If you're looking for a spell that will provide a long-lasting enhancement to the damage dealt by you and your companion (Paladin and Ranger versions), this is what you want. Straight-forward +1d4 radiant damage to all your (and companion's) weapon attacks (even ranged!) for the whole duration. It does not scale with spell slots (gee, I wonder why? :P ), but it's hard to argue with extra damage that'll last the entirety of most of your encounters.
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.
Sigred, I think you are reading the quoted “target” definition in chapter 10 very different than I am. When a spell tells me to choose a point within range, that point is the target, even if it effects creatures at or around that point. If instead it tells me to choose one or more creatures within a range, then those creatures are the target.
i understand that there’s room to disagree, but from everything I’ve seen, the term “target” is defined one way (my way) by Chapter 10, but then often used within spell descriptions in a less precise way like what you are describing.
When a character casts any spell, the same basic rules are followed, regardless of the character's class or the spell's effects.
Each spell description begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.
Beginning at 15th level, when you cast a spell targeting yourself, you can also affect your beast companion with the spell if the beast is within 30 feet of you.
The next time you hit a creature with a weapon attack before this spell ends, a writhing mass of thorny vines appears at the point of impact, and the target must succeed on a Strength saving throw or be restrained by the magical vines until the spell ends.
Contrary to the name of the ability, it doesn't say "...when you cast a spell targeting yourself, you can share the affect of the spell with your beast companion if the beast is within 30 feet of you." The spell has a duration. The spell has an effect. The effect is applied to the ranger. The effect is applied to the beast. So, until or unless concentration is broken, "The next time you (the ranger) hit a creature with a weapon attack before this spell ends..." and "The next time you (the beast) hit a creature with a weapon attack before this spell ends...".
Sigred, I think you are reading the quoted “target” definition in chapter 10 very different than I am. When a spell tells me to choose a point within range, that point is the target, even if it effects creatures at or around that point. If instead it tells me to choose one or more creatures within a range, then those creatures are the target.
i understand that there’s room to disagree, but from everything I’ve seen, the term “target” is defined one way (my way) by Chapter 10, but then often used within spell descriptions in a less precise way like what you are describing.
Dude... Ice Knife... c'mon, you already know for a fact that isn't true. Everything/everyone that is affected by a spell is a target of the spell itself.
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.
Sigred, I think you are reading the quoted “target” definition in chapter 10 very different than I am. When a spell tells me to choose a point within range, that point is the target, even if it effects creatures at or around that point. If instead it tells me to choose one or more creatures within a range, then those creatures are the target.
i understand that there’s room to disagree, but from everything I’ve seen, the term “target” is defined one way (my way) by Chapter 10, but then often used within spell descriptions in a less precise way like what you are describing.
Dude... Ice Knife... c'mon, you already know for a fact that isn't true. Everything/everyone that is affected by a spell is a target of the spell itself.
Then why does ice knife specifically say "The target AND each creature within 5 ft" rather than "targets"? The fact that it makes that distinction implies that the other affected creatures are NOT targets?
The truth is, I really don't know WHAT is meant by "target", and it would sure be easier if spell description headers had a "target" section instead of a "range/area" section. TLDR... I can't really find a bright line rule that matches all the instances we find in all the places, leading to my conclusion that the rule and term itself weren't adequately defined. I think at the end of the day you have to draw the line somewhere, so I look personally to bisect the target the spell is cast upon from the magical effect's subsequent targets.
Targets
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).
What does this mean? That the "target" of the spell are the creatures/objects/points/areas "affected by the spell's magic"? Or, the creatures/objects/points/areas describes in the "spell's description" as targets? Or, the creatures/objects/points/areas described by the spell's Range/Area of Effect section in its header? Some of the other sections in Chapter 10 narrow down these equally-ambiguous options.
Range
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range. For a spell like magic missile, the target is a creature. For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts.
The Range section provides examples and tells us that the "target" of Magic Missile is "a creature [within the spell's range]." When we look at Magic Missile's spell entry, there's nothing in the header that says "a creature," but we do see a "range" of 120 feet. The body of the spell says "Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range," and later describes that creature as "its target." Did that narrow any of our three options (targets affected, vs. targets defined, vs. range/area header)? Not really, because all three are equally satisfied by Magic Missile.
But the Range section also provides Fireball as an example, and it's very illuminating. Looking at Fireball's entry, we have not only a range of 150 feet, but also an area described (20 foot radius sphere). The body of the spell instead describes "a point you choose within range." But then, "each creature" within the sphere that is centered on that point is described as "a target"?!? Is the target the area? the point? the creatures? all of them!?! But the Range section cuts through the possibilities, "the target is the point in space".
So what do we learn from Fireball? (1) when creatures are described as "targets" in the body of the spell, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're "the target" of the spell; (2) the range/area of effect section in the header isn't necessarily "the target" either (though it does describe where the target will be found); and (3) the first thing that the spell describes you choosing is probably the "target."
So can we find an example of a spell that would break "choice" being the guidance of what the target is? Well... the Smite spells don't really cause a problem, because "choice" isn't mentioned, the spell just has a range of "self" and affects your own weapon when it makes a melee attack, that seems pretty obviously "self." But a spell like Eyebite...
Range? Self.
Affected? First, yourself, as "your eyes become an inky void imbued with darkness." But then, you affect another creature that turn, and can choose new creatures to affect on future turns!
Choice? The only "choice" that's mentioned is the creature you're affecting.... but if "choice" is target, then does that mean that we never targeted ourself, and that the target of the spell is BEYOND the "range: self" we found in the spell header? But, that contradicts Chapter 10, "the target of the spell must be within the spell's range"!!!!
Oof, big oof. Once you start looking, there's no shortage of weird spells... Goodberry targets berries that you touch, but then those berries might be carried elsewhere to affect other creatures far away, beyond the range of touch! Ice Knife describes one target (a creature of your choice within its range), but then affects other creatures that are possibly beyond that range, without calling them targets! Stinking Cloud targets a point within range, creates an area of effect (just like Fireball), but the affected creatures within that area are never called "targets" while Fireballdid use the word "targets" but was clarified in the Range section of Chapter 10 to not really mean targets, and.....
Chaos. Contradictions. Poor Editing. There is no one single rule of thumb that can be found that will always work to define "target." To paraphrase the immortal words of U.S Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart when seeking to define obscenity, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["target"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the [creature struck by Thunderous Smite ]is not that."
So most folks think the smite-like spells don't work well because the spell looks for the first time an attack hits. I'm still on the fence on that. But let's say that's the case. How about something like Thunderclap cantrip (you could get this from a single dip multiclass or magic initiate feat)?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/thunderclap
This just happens when cast. A AoE would erupt from both the ranger and beast, yes?
Thunderclap does not target a single creature, so can never target only the caster. That spell is not valid for this purpose.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Correct, range is 5 foot.
Interesting thing with that though is does your steed take damage. Probably not RAW but I would rule that any affect that exempts you also exempts your steed (as a converse to a spell that affects only you also affects your steed.)
RAW, yes, your steed would also have to make a save.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Ok. Sorry for the confusion again. I’m specifically talking about the beast master ranger ability that does NOT say only one creature targeted by the spell. The paladin spell find steed has that restriction only.
SHARE SPELLS
Beginning at 15th level, when you cast a spell targeting yourself, you can also affect your beast companion with the spell if the beast is within 30 feet of you.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/05/22/find-steed-spells-that-target-only-you/amp/
While mounted on your steed, you can make any spell you cast that targets only you also target your steed.
Fireball targets a location, and the effect targets anyone within that location. This is not a new concept; Thunderous Smite targets more than just yourself.
Find Steed explicitly requires that the spell being cast only targets the Paladin, so it is very intentional that the Smite line of spells are not eligible. They are eligible for use with the Beast Master Ranger's 15th level feature, yet as I noted earlier the mount summoned by Find Steed is entirely ineligible to also be a Ranger's Companion.
It's because those spells require concentration. When you cast Pass Without Trace, you are concentrating on the spell you've cast, and that spell is providing a benefit to your designated targets. When you lose concentration on your spell, the benefits of the spell end for everyone.
When you are sharing a spell via Find Steed or Share Spells, you are not casting two spells. You are casting one spell, that you use concentration to maintain, and you are extending the effect of the spell to your steed/companion. You have one spell effect going as an umbrella that you are holding up with concentration. Sharing the spell brings your companion under your umbrella; it doesn't create two umbrellas.
The main condition which ends the smite spells is making a successful attack and applying the spell's damage/effect to the target... "The first time you hit with a melee weapon attack during this spell’s duration"; It's one-and-done. You and your companion are under the effect of the same spell, so whichever one of you makes that successful attack ends the spell entirely.
Sposta already mentioned it, but Thunderclap does not target yourself at all, so that spell is never eligible for use with Shared Spells.
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.
Incorrect. The attacks target others, but the spell targets only the caster.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
"The main condition which ends the smite spells is making a successful attack and applying the spell's damage/effect to the target... "The first time you hit with a melee weapon attack during this spell’s duration"; It's one-and-done. You and your companion are under the effect of the same spell, so whichever one of you makes that successful attack ends the spell entirely."
This makes sense. The spell ends two ways: on a hit or end of concentration.
"Sposta already mentioned it, but Thunderclap does not target yourself at all, so that spell is never eligible for use with Shared Spells."
Ok. How about primal savagery or word of radiance? One targets self and the other "erupts from you".
Primal Savagery is just as eligible as the Smite Spells. Word of Radiance is an AoE and so therefore ineligible.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Dude, no... everything the spell affects is a target of the spell itself. I know you know this already from the numerous threads about what a spell's "targets" are, and the PHB is clear on this:
Thunderous Smite has two targets: yourself, and the target of your attack. If you count the weapon itself (debatable), there are three targets which the spell affects. This disqualifies it from ever being usable with Find Steed. It is fine to use with the Beast Master's companion at level 15 because the only requirement there is that the spell has to include yourself as a target of it.
No to both for Find Steed. Yes to Primal Savagery with the Beast Master's companion at level 15--which still ends when either of you land the attack--and no to Word of Radiance entirely.
Reality check: outside of niche circumstances allowing you to cast more spells than normal, like Action Surge, you can't double-nuke. The whole magic system of 5e is designed to prevent that, and neither Find Steed nor the Beast Master's feature changes that.
As I've mentioned multiple times now, neither of those features duplicate an entire spell, so let's get on the same page as to what Share Spells actually does:
Affecting something with the spell means that, whatever the effect of the spell is, you apply it to the target.
If you were to cast a direct-damage spell like Fireball on an area that includes yourself (taking damage from it), then you can also affect your companion with the spell.
What is the effect of Fireball? 8d6 fire damage, with a Dex save to potentially take only half damage.
What happens if you choose to affect your companion with the spell? Your companion also takes 8d6 fire damage, with a Dex save to potentially take only half damage.
What is the effect of Cure Wounds? Regain hit points equal to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier.
You can cast this on yourself, so what happens if you choose to affect your companion with the spell? They also regain hit points equal to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier.
Sharing a spell with your companion does not mean the companion gets to act as if they have also cast the spell themselves. It only means the spell's effect also happens to them.
The Smite series of spells exist in a very particular cross-section of spell target interactions which have multi-step effects. It first targets yourself, like a "buff", which is what allows you to share it with a Ranger's Companion (not Find Steed) in the first place. Then the spell applies a damage effect to the target of your (or companion's) next melee attack.
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.
Yeah. This was the line of thinking I was talking about before, and still not 100% convinced it doesn't work like that (for the ranger version) for these types of spells. Ranger casts the spell, targeting themself. The spell effect is applied to the ranger. The spell effect is applied to the beast as well. I'm on the fence.
Yeah, the Smite spells are wonky. You can use them with your Ranger's Companion, but you don't get anything "extra" out of it since it's still one-and-done.
Go back to the big list of spells I posted at the beginning, and to the one spell I called out specifically: Divine Favor. If you're looking for a spell that will provide a long-lasting enhancement to the damage dealt by you and your companion (Paladin and Ranger versions), this is what you want. Straight-forward +1d4 radiant damage to all your (and companion's) weapon attacks (even ranged!) for the whole duration. It does not scale with spell slots (gee, I wonder why? :P ), but it's hard to argue with extra damage that'll last the entirety of most of your encounters.
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.
Sigred, I think you are reading the quoted “target” definition in chapter 10 very different than I am. When a spell tells me to choose a point within range, that point is the target, even if it effects creatures at or around that point. If instead it tells me to choose one or more creatures within a range, then those creatures are the target.
i understand that there’s room to disagree, but from everything I’ve seen, the term “target” is defined one way (my way) by Chapter 10, but then often used within spell descriptions in a less precise way like what you are describing.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Casting a Spell
When a character casts any spell, the same basic rules are followed, regardless of the character's class or the spell's effects.
Each spell description begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Share Spells
Beginning at 15th level, when you cast a spell targeting yourself, you can also affect your beast companion with the spell if the beast is within 30 feet of you.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ensnaring Strike
The next time you hit a creature with a weapon attack before this spell ends, a writhing mass of thorny vines appears at the point of impact, and the target must succeed on a Strength saving throw or be restrained by the magical vines until the spell ends.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Contrary to the name of the ability, it doesn't say "...when you cast a spell targeting yourself, you can share the affect of the spell with your beast companion if the beast is within 30 feet of you." The spell has a duration. The spell has an effect. The effect is applied to the ranger. The effect is applied to the beast. So, until or unless concentration is broken, "The next time you (the ranger) hit a creature with a weapon attack before this spell ends..." and "The next time you (the beast) hit a creature with a weapon attack before this spell ends...".
Dude... Ice Knife... c'mon, you already know for a fact that isn't true. Everything/everyone that is affected by a spell is a target of the spell itself.
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.
Then why does ice knife specifically say "The target AND each creature within 5 ft" rather than "targets"? The fact that it makes that distinction implies that the other affected creatures are NOT targets?
The truth is, I really don't know WHAT is meant by "target", and it would sure be easier if spell description headers had a "target" section instead of a "range/area" section. TLDR... I can't really find a bright line rule that matches all the instances we find in all the places, leading to my conclusion that the rule and term itself weren't adequately defined. I think at the end of the day you have to draw the line somewhere, so I look personally to bisect the target the spell is cast upon from the magical effect's subsequent targets.
What does this mean? That the "target" of the spell are the creatures/objects/points/areas "affected by the spell's magic"? Or, the creatures/objects/points/areas describes in the "spell's description" as targets? Or, the creatures/objects/points/areas described by the spell's Range/Area of Effect section in its header? Some of the other sections in Chapter 10 narrow down these equally-ambiguous options.
The Range section provides examples and tells us that the "target" of Magic Missile is "a creature [within the spell's range]." When we look at Magic Missile's spell entry, there's nothing in the header that says "a creature," but we do see a "range" of 120 feet. The body of the spell says "Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range," and later describes that creature as "its target." Did that narrow any of our three options (targets affected, vs. targets defined, vs. range/area header)? Not really, because all three are equally satisfied by Magic Missile.
But the Range section also provides Fireball as an example, and it's very illuminating. Looking at Fireball's entry, we have not only a range of 150 feet, but also an area described (20 foot radius sphere). The body of the spell instead describes "a point you choose within range." But then, "each creature" within the sphere that is centered on that point is described as "a target"?!? Is the target the area? the point? the creatures? all of them!?! But the Range section cuts through the possibilities, "the target is the point in space".
So what do we learn from Fireball? (1) when creatures are described as "targets" in the body of the spell, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're "the target" of the spell; (2) the range/area of effect section in the header isn't necessarily "the target" either (though it does describe where the target will be found); and (3) the first thing that the spell describes you choosing is probably the "target."
So can we find an example of a spell that would break "choice" being the guidance of what the target is? Well... the Smite spells don't really cause a problem, because "choice" isn't mentioned, the spell just has a range of "self" and affects your own weapon when it makes a melee attack, that seems pretty obviously "self." But a spell like Eyebite...
Oof, big oof. Once you start looking, there's no shortage of weird spells... Goodberry targets berries that you touch, but then those berries might be carried elsewhere to affect other creatures far away, beyond the range of touch! Ice Knife describes one target (a creature of your choice within its range), but then affects other creatures that are possibly beyond that range, without calling them targets! Stinking Cloud targets a point within range, creates an area of effect (just like Fireball), but the affected creatures within that area are never called "targets" while Fireball did use the word "targets" but was clarified in the Range section of Chapter 10 to not really mean targets, and.....
Chaos. Contradictions. Poor Editing. There is no one single rule of thumb that can be found that will always work to define "target." To paraphrase the immortal words of U.S Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart when seeking to define obscenity, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["target"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the [creature struck by Thunderous Smite ]is not that."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.