For what it's worth, I don't actually think the change prevents Spell Sniper from working with these cantrips. It still has a range of 5 feet, and it still calls for you to make an attack roll. The "Self" origin confuses the issue, but I don't believe it changes the spell in a way that invalidates Spell Sniper.
But the conversation we're having isn't actually about the Booming Blade changes in Tasha's, so that doesn't feel super relevant to me. We're already off-topic, so it likewise feels a bit disingenuous to raise that original topic as a point here :p
My point is that Thirsting Blade is fundamentally different from (without loss of generality) the ranger's Extra Attack in a way that the bladesinger's Extra Attack is not. The conversation about bladesinger Extra Attack changes in Tasha's is simply not the conversation I'm having. My opinion there is that it's a weird and unnecessary thing to shoehorn into Extra Attack, but that's not relevant to the distinction between the Extra Attack features that we have right now and Thirsting Blade.
[EDIT] And, I should add, it seems very likely that we're simply having different conversations, which is something that happens quite often in thirteen-page threads where people only get the most recent half of any given sub-discussion. I'm sorry if we've just been talking past each other!
I think we just weren't understanding each other. I don't care enough about this to continue arguing about it, as it seems like we agree that they shouldn't have shoved the "cantrip replaces an attack" into Extra Attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
For what it's worth, I don't actually think the change prevents Spell Sniper from working with these cantrips. It still has a range of 5 feet, and it still calls for you to make an attack roll. The "Self" origin confuses the issue, but I don't believe it changes the spell in a way that invalidates Spell Sniper.
It shouldn’t need spell sniper.
I agree completely; I was only responding to Yurei's suggestion that this change is meant to keep these spells away from reach weapons.
The problem is that neither Booming Blade nor Green-Flame Blade make sense with a strict, harshly enforced five-foot range limitation. Especially when the Sword Coast book GOES OUT OF ITS WAY to say that some Bladesinging traditions make use of the whip, i.e. the thing everybody carps about Bladesingers for using.
The spell, from an in-world sense, imbues one's weapon with arcane power. You can imbue your halberd with a magical green flame that burns your target, swing it at the orc stomping on your kneecaps and it works just fine. Swing that exact same halberd, with the exact same magical imbuement, at the orc's shield brother behind him, ten feet out...and the fire just kinda falls off? It disappears without cause or reason simply because the weapon's business end is a little further away from you than a smaller weapon's would be?
It simply makes zero sense. And while I understand this is the Rules and Game Mechanics subforum, where RAW is king and "fluff" is a dirty word, the spells being as restrictive and dispermissive as they are breaks immersion and verisimilitude, often badly. My table has never enforced the obnoxious range restriction rules when using the Blade cantrips no matter who was the DM at the time, and it has never mattered. Yeah, it means the elven assassin rogue Castlevania's critters with a flaming whip from ten feet without having to 'pay' for it by taking a dozen feats or burning an entire level 20 sorcerer's stock of metamagic in one fight. Oh well? It's far from the most busted thing one can do with a cantrip.
I just don't understand why Wizards is so hell-bent on eliminating any sort of reach with these things, and killing as many interactions as they can. Blugh.
For what it's worth, I don't actually think the change prevents Spell Sniper from working with these cantrips. It still has a range of 5 feet, and it still calls for you to make an attack roll. The "Self" origin confuses the issue, but I don't believe it changes the spell in a way that invalidates Spell Sniper.
You are right, the change does not prevent Spell Sniper from applying to the cantrips, but it prevents it from having any mechanical importance cause the range is overridden in the description of the spell to "one creature within 5 feet of you".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Yes, it does. The range of a "Range: Self (....)" spell is "self." The size of the AOE created is not its range.
Most spells have ranges expressed in feet.Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.
Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell's effect must be you (see “Areas of Effect” later in the this chapter).
There are three types of range: A range in feet (e.g., the "Range: 5 feet" that BB used to have). A range of touch (e.g., shocking grasp), which keys off of your Reach based on creature size. Or, a range of self, either because it's targeting yourself, or creating an AOE that originates from your self as a point of origin.
That's it, that's what the PHB tells us about spell ranges.
Spell Sniper allows that "When you cast a spell that requires you to make an attack roll, the spell’s range is doubled." BB certainly requires an attack roll, great. But the spell's "range" is "Self". "Double Self" is not a coherent effect. Spell Sniper does not let you double the size of a spell's area of effect. So no, Spell Sniper will no longer let you use it within 10 feet.
Yes, it does. The range of a "Range: Self (....)" spell is "self." The size of the AOE created is not its range.
Most spells have ranges expressed in feet.Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.
Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell's effect must be you (see “Areas of Effect” later in the this chapter).
There are three types of range: A range in feet (e.g., the "Range: 5 feet" that BB used to have). A range of touch (e.g., shocking grasp). Or, a range of self, either because it's targeting yourself, or creating an AOE that originates from your self as a point of origin.
That's it, that's what the PHB tells us about spell ranges.
Spell Sniper allows that "When you cast a spell that requires you to make an attack roll, the spell’s range is doubled." BB certainly requires an attack roll, great. But the spell's "range" is "Self". "Double Self" is not a coherent effect. Spell Sniper does not let you double the size of a spell's area of effect. So no, Spell Sniper will no longer let you use it within 10 feet.
Spell Sniper does not require that a spell not have a range of "Self," and these spells have a range not of "Self," but of "Self (5-foot radius)," which can very obviously very coherently be doubled to "Self (10-foot radius)" without issue. Pretending that they're just "Self" is disingenuous.
Note that as I've said several times now, Booming Blade does not fall under either the spell ranges listed in the Basic Rules. It is most likely changed to Self (5ft) for purely flavor reasons as to match how you sheath a target in booming energy that radiates from you to said singular target.
To be fair there are a lot of spells that don't fall under the spell ranges listed in the Basic Rules cause WoTC have established themselves to not be the best at writing RAW. Technically the above rule you listed in this context only applies to cone & line self spells in some weird oversight.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
(5 foot radius) is not "the range", it's the shape of the area of effect. Chapter 10 is explicit that the range of any spell with "Range: Self (....)" is "range of self." It's also been confirmed as RAI by his recent tweet on that subject yesterday.
Furthermore... really, what intent would YOU ascribe to the authors for changing "Range: 5 feet" to "Range: Self (5 feet)" other than to make it a "range of self" spell rather than a "range in feet" spell. Do you really think they errata'd it, but thought that the errata was meaningless????
It's not controversial, just technically not stated in Chapter 10. Chapter 10 is explicit that the range of any line or cone spell with "Range: Self (....)" is "range of self." This is obviously not RAI and most people including me don't care much for it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
(5 foot radius) is not "the range", it's the shape of the area of effect. Chapter 10 is explicit that the range of any spell with "Range: Self (....)" is "range of self." It's also been confirmed as RAI by his recent tweet on that subject yesterday.
What about that is controversial?
Oh my gosh, it is absolutely the range! That is what the word "range" means! I swear, CC, even when I think you're being a bit bone-headed I usually feel like you're arguing in good faith, but I don't know that that's true here. Sure, a range of "Self (5-foot radius)" is a range of Self! It's also a range of 5 feet. There is no way around that! It's right there in black and white!
Furthermore... really, what intent would YOU ascribe to the authors for changing "Range: 5 feet" to "Range: Self (5 feet)" other than to make it a "range of self" spell rather than a "range in feet" spell. Do you really think they errata'd it, but thought that the errata was meaningless????
If they wanted it to be "range of self" rather than "range in feet," they'd have just made the range "Self." What intent would you ascribe to the authors making it "Self (5-foot radius)" and not "Self"? But I'll go ahead and actually answer your question anyway, because I have no ******* clue what their intent is. It's an unnecessary erratum and I can't make heads or tails of it. [EDIT] Oh right, it makes it explicitly un-twinnable. That's the intent I would ascribe to the authors. Kinda feel bad for getting so worked up that I swore (at the designers, not at you), but what can you do.
If the spell was "Range: Self," then the caster would need to be a creature target. They didn't want that, they wanted it to be a creature hard capped within a 5 foot area of effect. Range: Self (5-foot radius) does exactly that (and, targets the caster's space as a point of origin as well, but they don't seem to have well defined what POO targets really mean for abilities like War Caster, to judge from JC's tweet).
That tweet literally does not say they aren't ranges, because that would be ridiculous: they clearly are ranges, by the plain meaning of the word.
"Range" and "Area of Effect" are two different things in a spell's description. JC calls the parenthetical the "effect", meaning, "area of effect." There are seperate sections in Chapter 10 for range and area of effect. Calling an area of effect a range is no more coherent than calling a duration a range, just because they both have numbers.
The range is "range of self." A 5-foot radius area of effect is created at that range. This is not unique, you do it every time you cast an AOE spell.
That tweet literally does not say they aren't ranges, because that would be ridiculous: they clearly are ranges, by the plain meaning of the word.
"Range" and "Area of Effect" are two different things in a spell's description. JC calls the parenthetical the "effect", meaning, "area of effect." There are seperate sections in Chapter 10 for range and area of effect. Calling an area of effect a range is no more coherent than calling a duration a range, just because they both have numbers.
The range is "range of self." A 5-foot radius area of effect is created at that range. This is not unique, you do it every time you cast an AOE spell.
Agreed, I think people are thrown off because for some reason they decided to put the area of effect in parenthesis instead of leaving it just in the spell description.
Functionally it's no different than spells like Pass Without Trace or Holy Aura, only those spells have a range of self but they specify area of effect in the description (30 ft. radius).
That tweet literally does not say they aren't ranges, because that would be ridiculous: they clearly are ranges, by the plain meaning of the word.
"Range" and "Area of Effect" are two different things in a spell's description. JC calls the parenthetical the "effect", meaning, "area of effect." There are seperate sections in Chapter 10 for range and area of effect. Calling an area of effect a range is no more coherent than calling a duration a range, just because they both have numbers.
The range is "range of self." A 5-foot radius area of effect is created at that range. This is not unique, you do it every time you cast an AOE spell.
That's... not what the tweet says. And a duration is a range! It's a temporal range, rather than spatial, so it doesn't really fit the plain meaning of the word, and I'll freely admit to that, because it's not necessary to my position, but it is a range. But a "5-foot radius" is not an area. It is a range that defines an area. You'll note that a range has a dimension of distance, whereas an area has a dimension of distance squared (or cubed, if we let ourselves step away from precise mathematical terminology).
Are you saying now that Jeremy's tweets are canonical and the black letter text of the rule books is no longer valid in order to make your point? This is a very different stance than you would usually take on this type of topic.
Chapter 10: All spells have a range. Most are expressed in feet, but spells that "create cones or lines of effect that originate from you" have a "range of self". These "areas of effect" have their own section, distinct from range.
Jeremy Crawford: That isn't something unique to cones and lines. Any spell "with a range of "Self (XYZ)": the parenthetical—which says "5-foot radius," "15-foot cone," or something else—means... you're creating an effect that originates in your space."
Chapter 10: Nowhere in the Area of Effect section are those areas described as ranges, or is the word range used to describe the measurements of their dimensions.
Chapter 10: A Sphere is expressed "as a radius in feet that extends from the point" [of origin].
New Booming Blade: Has a "range of self" per Chapter 10. Describes an effect within a radius in feet extending from a point of origin. Is a classic AOE spell, albeit one that quite unusually only affects one single enemy creature within its AOE.
I really don't know why one would draw the conclusion that a spell like Tiny Hut would have a range of 10 feet, when it describes a spell springing up "around you" and gives a range that Chapter 10 defines as a "range of self"? You think the range of Earthquake is "100 foot radius circle," not "500 feet"? I don't have a physical PHB in front of me to investigate the subtleties of how dndbeyond might format its "Range/Area" spell description headers differently than they might have originally been printed, but suffice to say, the PHB describes range being one thing and area of effect as being another, and there's no shortage of spells that show how ludicrous it would be to treat an area like a range.
BB makes an attack against one creature within the 5-foot-radius-sphere area of effect, and places that area of effect at range of self. I'm not saying that's a GOOD thing, I really wish they'd left it the way they had before... but this is the idea they came up with to stop it from being Twinned, and it's had the consequence of rendering it ineligible for anything that discards "range of self" spells or interacts with a convention range measured in feet.
I feel like there is some really hardcore hair splitting here.
Thunderwave is an example of a spell that is not a line or cone, it has a range of self (15 ft cube) and emanates from you where you are specifically not a target, meaning that there is a precedent for that.
It shouldn’t need spell sniper.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I think we just weren't understanding each other. I don't care enough about this to continue arguing about it, as it seems like we agree that they shouldn't have shoved the "cantrip replaces an attack" into Extra Attack.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I agree completely; I was only responding to Yurei's suggestion that this change is meant to keep these spells away from reach weapons.
You are right, the change does not prevent Spell Sniper from applying to the cantrips, but it prevents it from having any mechanical importance cause the range is overridden in the description of the spell to "one creature within 5 feet of you".
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Yes, it does. The range of a "Range: Self (....)" spell is "self." The size of the AOE created is not its range.
There are three types of range: A range in feet (e.g., the "Range: 5 feet" that BB used to have). A range of touch (e.g., shocking grasp), which keys off of your Reach based on creature size. Or, a range of self, either because it's targeting yourself, or creating an AOE that originates from your self as a point of origin.
That's it, that's what the PHB tells us about spell ranges.
Spell Sniper allows that "When you cast a spell that requires you to make an attack roll, the spell’s range is doubled." BB certainly requires an attack roll, great. But the spell's "range" is "Self". "Double Self" is not a coherent effect. Spell Sniper does not let you double the size of a spell's area of effect. So no, Spell Sniper will no longer let you use it within 10 feet.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Spell Sniper does not require that a spell not have a range of "Self," and these spells have a range not of "Self," but of "Self (5-foot radius)," which can very obviously very coherently be doubled to "Self (10-foot radius)" without issue. Pretending that they're just "Self" is disingenuous.
Note that as I've said several times now, Booming Blade does not fall under either the spell ranges listed in the Basic Rules. It is most likely changed to Self (5ft) for purely flavor reasons as to match how you sheath a target in booming energy that radiates from you to said singular target.
To be fair there are a lot of spells that don't fall under the spell ranges listed in the Basic Rules cause WoTC have established themselves to not be the best at writing RAW. Technically the above rule you listed in this context only applies to cone & line self spells in some weird oversight.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
(5 foot radius) is not "the range", it's the shape of the area of effect. Chapter 10 is explicit that the range of any spell with "Range: Self (....)" is "range of self." It's also been confirmed as RAI by his recent tweet on that subject yesterday.
What about that is controversial?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Furthermore... really, what intent would YOU ascribe to the authors for changing "Range: 5 feet" to "Range: Self (5 feet)" other than to make it a "range of self" spell rather than a "range in feet" spell. Do you really think they errata'd it, but thought that the errata was meaningless????
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It's not controversial, just technically not stated in Chapter 10. Chapter 10 is explicit that the range of any line or cone spell with "Range: Self (....)" is "range of self." This is obviously not RAI and most people including me don't care much for it.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Oh my gosh, it is absolutely the range! That is what the word "range" means! I swear, CC, even when I think you're being a bit bone-headed I usually feel like you're arguing in good faith, but I don't know that that's true here. Sure, a range of "Self (5-foot radius)" is a range of Self! It's also a range of 5 feet. There is no way around that! It's right there in black and white!
If they wanted it to be "range of self" rather than "range in feet," they'd have just made the range "Self." What intent would you ascribe to the authors making it "Self (5-foot radius)" and not "Self"? But I'll go ahead and actually answer your question anyway, because I have no ******* clue what their intent is. It's an unnecessary erratum and I can't make heads or tails of it. [EDIT] Oh right, it makes it explicitly un-twinnable. That's the intent I would ascribe to the authors. Kinda feel bad for getting so worked up that I swore (at the designers, not at you), but what can you do.
According to the man himself, all parentheticals describe the size/shape of the effect, not ranges, and not just line or cone spells.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1326595384790056960
If that isn't enough for you, read up on Areas of Effect (which are NOT ranges)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That tweet literally does not say they aren't ranges, because that would be ridiculous: they clearly are ranges, by the plain meaning of the word.
If the spell was "Range: Self," then the caster would need to be a creature target. They didn't want that, they wanted it to be a creature hard capped within a 5 foot area of effect. Range: Self (5-foot radius) does exactly that (and, targets the caster's space as a point of origin as well, but they don't seem to have well defined what POO targets really mean for abilities like War Caster, to judge from JC's tweet).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
"Range" and "Area of Effect" are two different things in a spell's description. JC calls the parenthetical the "effect", meaning, "area of effect." There are seperate sections in Chapter 10 for range and area of effect. Calling an area of effect a range is no more coherent than calling a duration a range, just because they both have numbers.
The range is "range of self." A 5-foot radius area of effect is created at that range. This is not unique, you do it every time you cast an AOE spell.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Agreed, I think people are thrown off because for some reason they decided to put the area of effect in parenthesis instead of leaving it just in the spell description.
Functionally it's no different than spells like Pass Without Trace or Holy Aura, only those spells have a range of self but they specify area of effect in the description (30 ft. radius).
That's... not what the tweet says. And a duration is a range! It's a temporal range, rather than spatial, so it doesn't really fit the plain meaning of the word, and I'll freely admit to that, because it's not necessary to my position, but it is a range. But a "5-foot radius" is not an area. It is a range that defines an area. You'll note that a range has a dimension of distance, whereas an area has a dimension of distance squared (or cubed, if we let ourselves step away from precise mathematical terminology).
(emphasis added)
Are you saying now that Jeremy's tweets are canonical and the black letter text of the rule books is no longer valid in order to make your point? This is a very different stance than you would usually take on this type of topic.
Chapter 10: All spells have a range. Most are expressed in feet, but spells that "create cones or lines of effect that originate from you" have a "range of self". These "areas of effect" have their own section, distinct from range.
Jeremy Crawford: That isn't something unique to cones and lines. Any spell "with a range of "Self (XYZ)": the parenthetical—which says "5-foot radius," "15-foot cone," or something else—means... you're creating an effect that originates in your space."
Chapter 10: Nowhere in the Area of Effect section are those areas described as ranges, or is the word range used to describe the measurements of their dimensions.
Chapter 10: A Sphere is expressed "as a radius in feet that extends from the point" [of origin].
New Booming Blade: Has a "range of self" per Chapter 10. Describes an effect within a radius in feet extending from a point of origin. Is a classic AOE spell, albeit one that quite unusually only affects one single enemy creature within its AOE.
I really don't know why one would draw the conclusion that a spell like Tiny Hut would have a range of 10 feet, when it describes a spell springing up "around you" and gives a range that Chapter 10 defines as a "range of self"? You think the range of Earthquake is "100 foot radius circle," not "500 feet"? I don't have a physical PHB in front of me to investigate the subtleties of how dndbeyond might format its "Range/Area" spell description headers differently than they might have originally been printed, but suffice to say, the PHB describes range being one thing and area of effect as being another, and there's no shortage of spells that show how ludicrous it would be to treat an area like a range.
BB makes an attack against one creature within the 5-foot-radius-sphere area of effect, and places that area of effect at range of self. I'm not saying that's a GOOD thing, I really wish they'd left it the way they had before... but this is the idea they came up with to stop it from being Twinned, and it's had the consequence of rendering it ineligible for anything that discards "range of self" spells or interacts with a convention range measured in feet.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I feel like there is some really hardcore hair splitting here.
Thunderwave is an example of a spell that is not a line or cone, it has a range of self (15 ft cube) and emanates from you where you are specifically not a target, meaning that there is a precedent for that.