Are you saying now that Jeremy's tweets are canonical and the black letter text of the rule books is no longer valid in order to make your point?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.
No. I think that JC is not the expert on the operation of this spell, and that as a consequence, BB is NOT usable with War Caster, because it clearly has a second target (the point of origin). But, the general consensus so far seems to be to move forward in this trying time accepting that we can still use it with War Caster because he says so... I'm just pointing out, if you accept JC's words so as to allow War Caster to be used, then you should also accept JC's words that are clearly supporting the conclusion that this is a "range of self" AOE spell not eligible for Twinned Spell, Distant Spell, or Spell Sniper. Also, that conclusion isn't really dependent on JC's tweet, because the Sphere AOE described Chapter 10 already plainly describes every single (X-foot radius) spell, showing that those radiuses are indeed areas of effect like they appear, not a weird way to rephrase "Range: X feet".
The crowd that is seeking to find a way for this errata to have changed nothing at all about the spell's operation are.... I don't really understand where they're coming from, to be honest, clearly it's been turned upside down and inside out.
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.
Thunderwave, per Chapter 10, has a "range of self." Its primary target, which must be within that range, is the point in your square that you originate it from. It also then affects creatures in its described area of effect, and a lot of people want to call those affected creatures "targets," which fine, we're not arguing about that right now. But the 15 foot cube is not a range, and a feature that let you double "the range" of a spell would not turn it into a 30 foot cube, or a 15x30 rectangle, or whatever.
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.
Thunderwave, per Chapter 10, has a "range of self." Its primary target, which must be within that range, is the point in your square that you originate it from. It also then affects creatures in its described area of effect, and a lot of people want to call those affect creatures "targets," which fine, we're not arguing about that right now. But the 15 foot cube is not a range, and a feature that let you double "the range" of a spell would not turn it into a 30 foot cube, or a 15x30 rectangle, or whatever.
I am not disagreeing with you, I was actually responding to the guy before who insists that only lines and cones can have the description "Range: Self (x ft)" which is clearly not true since Thunderwave has it and it's neither a line nor a cone.
I am not disagreeing with you, I was actually responding to the guy before who insists that only lines and cones can have the description "Range: Self (x ft)" which is clearly not true since Thunderwave has it and it's neither a line nor a cone.
I am not disagreeing with you, I was actually responding to the guy before who insists that only lines and cones can have the description "Range: Self (x ft)" which is clearly not true since Thunderwave has it and it's neither a line nor a cone.
Lol sorry, it's me against the world right now :p
No worries, I could've quoted for clarification but the quoting system on the forums...ugh, let's just say I try to avoid it as much as I can :P
The problem is that it seems like ch 10, each spell, and each class feature interacting with spells seem to have been written without a consistent design in mind. Range: self may very well mean any number of things but what is described in ch 10 (either being the target or the origin of a line or cone) doesn’t actually fit with how that range is used or how the authors want to use it. That is symptomatic of problems beyond what can be resolved on this forum.
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.
Thunderwave, per Chapter 10, has a "range of self." Its primary target, which must be within that range, is the point in your square that you originate it from. It also then affects creatures in its described area of effect, and a lot of people want to call those affect creatures "targets," which fine, we're not arguing about that right now. But the 15 foot cube is not a range, and a feature that let you double "the range" of a spell would not turn it into a 30 foot cube, or a 15x30 rectangle, or whatever.
I am not disagreeing with you, I was actually responding to the guy before who insists that only lines and cones can have the description "Range: Self (x ft)" which is clearly not true since Thunderwave has it and it's neither a line nor a cone.
To be fair, i said it because the rules say it. If you disagree with me, you’re disagreeing with the rules.
You might be able to come up with any number of examples inconsistent with the rules, but that only provides that there are inconsistencies in the rules, not that the rules are different than they say they are.
Bees, I agree. I think that WotC probably does not have a "rules lawyers" team that vettes spells and class features and feats as they are written, it's probably just the whole team writing their own stuff and ambling along. If there was one "that guy" responsible for annoying everyone by double checking if their spell should really be "Range: 30" vs. "Range: Self (30-foot radius)" vs. "Range: Self" (+ a power that lets you then attack things within 30 feet immediately, similar to Eyebite) vs. "Range: 30 (5-foot square)," (all of which SEEM like they result in the same attack against the same target within the same range) things would come out cleaner. They're big differences mechanically, but they feel like arbitrary afterthoughts when you filter the spells by range on dndbeyond and realize how many spell descriptions don't seem to match their spell header.
I am not completely against natural language rules, but I completely agree. There needs to be someone in charge of consistency. Are these cantrips really so different from smite spells that the same range and similar text would not work? Why? If they could be worded/headed similarly then they should.
I feel like we need a reset on this forum or something. I've said all of this 160 posts ago, and most of this isn't that relevant due to Crawford's tweets (if you want to go by RAI).
Yeah the devs aren't consist with wording, and focus more on flavor & natural language more than strict wording. This is nothing new and should probably be discussed elsewhere, although I really don't think we more discussion on this.
Honestly, the more I look at the new vs original wording of Booming/Green-Flame Blade, the more I think they just wound up creating a whole new set of questions. I'd love to hear explicitly from them exactly which combos they were trying to allow & prevent, because I think they could've done a better job with this one.
The confusion intensifies. If he, as a DM would still allow it then why change the spell at all? Who was it that pushed the change? Was there a specific combo they wanted to prevent?
The confusion intensifies. If he, as a DM would still allow it then why change the spell at all? Who was it that pushed the change? Was there a specific combo they wanted to prevent?
No, he's clarifying that it never should have worked with Shadow Blade in the first place. The two working together was an unintended consequence.
The confusion intensifies. If he, as a DM would still allow it then why change the spell at all? Who was it that pushed the change? Was there a specific combo they wanted to prevent?
No, he's clarifying that it never should have worked with Shadow Blade in the first place. The two working together was an unintended consequence.
Hence my question of who makes the rule changes. If JC as lead rules designer is spearheading it then it makes no sense for him to push for a change and then say that he would still allow it to work.
Though I don't know if I would call what he said "clarifying" anything. Certainly wouldn't say that he is saying that it should've never worked in the first place.
The confusion intensifies. If he, as a DM would still allow it then why change the spell at all? Who was it that pushed the change? Was there a specific combo they wanted to prevent?
No, he's clarifying that it never should have worked with Shadow Blade in the first place. The two working together was an unintended consequence.
Hence my question of who makes the rule changes. If JC as lead rules designer is spearheading it then it makes no sense for him to push for a change and then say that he would still allow it to work.
Though I don't know if I would call what he said "clarifying" anything. Certainly wouldn't say that he is saying that it should've never worked in the first place.
I can think of two reasons why you see a disconnect.
Jeremy Crawford is the lead designer, which means he's not the only one. And though he may lead the team, he is not a dictator. There is no singular expert on every rule and how they all interact.
As an individual, Crawford's own liberalness with the rules (his house rules, as it were) should have no bearing on how things are, officially, supposed to work. Dan Dillon, who joined the team...last year, I think...has his own house rules for the ranger; including giving bonus spells for the beast master and hunter archetypes. And Crawford is perfectly fine with letting someone cast Burning Handswith only one hand, even though the description says otherwise.
The spell itself is a little wonky, which may be a factor here. It, "[weaves] together threads of shadow to create a sword of solidified gloom in your hand," that is also, "a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient." And there are no swords that are also simple weapons. A sword is more evocative than, say, a dagger or handaxe, and the latter probably makes more sense mechanically. But it's also magic and can do whatever it wants. Flame Blade whips up a "scimitar" used to make melee spell attacks and causes 3d6 fire damage.
I'm pretty liberal, myself, when it comes to descriptions. The mechanics matter more than the flavor text. I spent most of the 4e era cutting my teeth on Savage Worlds. Its version of "spells" are customizable powers that can vary wildly in their trappings, but all have a unified mechanic. A "smite" power that adds +2 damage to an attack could be glowing runes, personal chi, or lighting the darn thing on fire. If you want to continue allowing the combination in your home game, you won't break anything. That concentration isn't being spent on something else, which is a decent trade-off. It probably won't even break it in the DDAL metagame. But it's something they have decided to edit and no longer, officially, allow. If the material component is intended to be a weapon, it should be an actual weapon.
The confusion intensifies. If he, as a DM would still allow it then why change the spell at all? Who was it that pushed the change? Was there a specific combo they wanted to prevent?
No. I think that JC is not the expert on the operation of this spell, and that as a consequence, BB is NOT usable with War Caster, because it clearly has a second target (the point of origin). But, the general consensus so far seems to be to move forward in this trying time accepting that we can still use it with War Caster because he says so... I'm just pointing out, if you accept JC's words so as to allow War Caster to be used, then you should also accept JC's words that are clearly supporting the conclusion that this is a "range of self" AOE spell not eligible for Twinned Spell, Distant Spell, or Spell Sniper. Also, that conclusion isn't really dependent on JC's tweet, because the Sphere AOE described Chapter 10 already plainly describes every single (X-foot radius) spell, showing that those radiuses are indeed areas of effect like they appear, not a weird way to rephrase "Range: X feet".
The crowd that is seeking to find a way for this errata to have changed nothing at all about the spell's operation are.... I don't really understand where they're coming from, to be honest, clearly it's been turned upside down and inside out.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Thunderwave, per Chapter 10, has a "range of self." Its primary target, which must be within that range, is the point in your square that you originate it from. It also then affects creatures in its described area of effect, and a lot of people want to call those affected creatures "targets," which fine, we're not arguing about that right now. But the 15 foot cube is not a range, and a feature that let you double "the range" of a spell would not turn it into a 30 foot cube, or a 15x30 rectangle, or whatever.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I am not disagreeing with you, I was actually responding to the guy before who insists that only lines and cones can have the description "Range: Self (x ft)" which is clearly not true since Thunderwave has it and it's neither a line nor a cone.
Lol sorry, it's me against the world right now :p
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
No worries, I could've quoted for clarification but the quoting system on the forums...ugh, let's just say I try to avoid it as much as I can :P
The problem is that it seems like ch 10, each spell, and each class feature interacting with spells seem to have been written without a consistent design in mind. Range: self may very well mean any number of things but what is described in ch 10 (either being the target or the origin of a line or cone) doesn’t actually fit with how that range is used or how the authors want to use it. That is symptomatic of problems beyond what can be resolved on this forum.
To be fair, i said it because the rules say it. If you disagree with me, you’re disagreeing with the rules.
You might be able to come up with any number of examples inconsistent with the rules, but that only provides that there are inconsistencies in the rules, not that the rules are different than they say they are.
Bees, I agree. I think that WotC probably does not have a "rules lawyers" team that vettes spells and class features and feats as they are written, it's probably just the whole team writing their own stuff and ambling along. If there was one "that guy" responsible for annoying everyone by double checking if their spell should really be "Range: 30" vs. "Range: Self (30-foot radius)" vs. "Range: Self" (+ a power that lets you then attack things within 30 feet immediately, similar to Eyebite) vs. "Range: 30 (5-foot square)," (all of which SEEM like they result in the same attack against the same target within the same range) things would come out cleaner. They're big differences mechanically, but they feel like arbitrary afterthoughts when you filter the spells by range on dndbeyond and realize how many spell descriptions don't seem to match their spell header.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I am not completely against natural language rules, but I completely agree. There needs to be someone in charge of consistency. Are these cantrips really so different from smite spells that the same range and similar text would not work? Why? If they could be worded/headed similarly then they should.
I feel like we need a reset on this forum or something. I've said all of this 160 posts ago, and most of this isn't that relevant due to Crawford's tweets (if you want to go by RAI).
Yeah the devs aren't consist with wording, and focus more on flavor & natural language more than strict wording. This is nothing new and should probably be discussed elsewhere, although I really don't think we more discussion on this.
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.
Honestly, the more I look at the new vs original wording of Booming/Green-Flame Blade, the more I think they just wound up creating a whole new set of questions. I'd love to hear explicitly from them exactly which combos they were trying to allow & prevent, because I think they could've done a better job with this one.
Apparently he personally thinks that it should still work with Shadow Blade as well.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1326925328267177984
The confusion intensifies. If he, as a DM would still allow it then why change the spell at all? Who was it that pushed the change? Was there a specific combo they wanted to prevent?
No, he's clarifying that it never should have worked with Shadow Blade in the first place. The two working together was an unintended consequence.
Hence my question of who makes the rule changes. If JC as lead rules designer is spearheading it then it makes no sense for him to push for a change and then say that he would still allow it to work.
Though I don't know if I would call what he said "clarifying" anything. Certainly wouldn't say that he is saying that it should've never worked in the first place.
I can think of two reasons why you see a disconnect.
The spell itself is a little wonky, which may be a factor here. It, "[weaves] together threads of shadow to create a sword of solidified gloom in your hand," that is also, "a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient." And there are no swords that are also simple weapons. A sword is more evocative than, say, a dagger or handaxe, and the latter probably makes more sense mechanically. But it's also magic and can do whatever it wants. Flame Blade whips up a "scimitar" used to make melee spell attacks and causes 3d6 fire damage.
I'm pretty liberal, myself, when it comes to descriptions. The mechanics matter more than the flavor text. I spent most of the 4e era cutting my teeth on Savage Worlds. Its version of "spells" are customizable powers that can vary wildly in their trappings, but all have a unified mechanic. A "smite" power that adds +2 damage to an attack could be glowing runes, personal chi, or lighting the darn thing on fire. If you want to continue allowing the combination in your home game, you won't break anything. That concentration isn't being spent on something else, which is a decent trade-off. It probably won't even break it in the DDAL metagame. But it's something they have decided to edit and no longer, officially, allow. If the material component is intended to be a weapon, it should be an actual weapon.
Crawford revealed it is still eligible for War Caster
The point of the change was to make it clear that you need to use a weapon for the M component, not a component pouch or spellcasting focus. They wanted to clarify the narrative aspect of the spell. That Shadow Blade got caught in the crossfire was unintended, though to be fair the weapon's value is undefined, not 0. It's not much of a stretch to rule it's just as good as any of the swords in the Player's Handbook when used as an M component, especially when the component isn't consumed.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Easy way to make the cantrips still work with Shadow Blade:
Step 1: Have a familiar.
Step 2: Give the familiar at least 1 silver piece.
Step 3: Cast Shadow Blade.
Step 4: Trade the Shadow Blade for the silver piece with your familiar.
Step 5: Resummon the Shadow Blade once it disappears.
Boom! You've got a weapon worth 1 silver piece, so it is now eligible for Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Worth and what you pay for something are not always equal.
Ah, are you trying to start a "price versus value" debate?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms