Having a range of "Self" is not the same as having a range of "Self (5-foot raidus)." Both spells originate from the spellcaster and only have one potential target. They can be twinned.
Also, both of you should try to avoid thread necromancy. It's been more than six months since the last post in November of last year.
Sure can't. In fact, the primary purpose of that change was shutting down metamagic shenanigans with the spell (both distant and twinned), and they nailed that. Booming Blade has two targets.
Serving as the point of origin doesn't mean you're a target.
Having a range of "Self" is not the same as having a range of "Self (5-foot raidus)." Both spells originate from the spellcaster and only have one potential target. They can be twinned.
Also, both of you should try to avoid thread necromancy. It's been more than six months since the last post in November of last year.
Sure can't. In fact, the primary purpose of that change was shutting down metamagic shenanigans with the spell (both distant and twinned), and they nailed that. Booming Blade has two targets.
Serving as the point of origin doesn't mean you're a target.
But twinned spell doesn't work on spells that target self, so neither option is able to be twinned. Distant won't work either, as both spells target self, a distance that can't be doubled per Distant spell. (even the Self (5 foot radius) won't work, otherwise distant spell would double the radius of other spells, like fireball (which it decidedly doesn't)
Having a range of "Self" is not the same as having a range of "Self (5-foot raidus)." Both spells originate from the spellcaster and only have one potential target. They can be twinned.
Also, both of you should try to avoid thread necromancy. It's been more than six months since the last post in November of last year.
Sure can't. In fact, the primary purpose of that change was shutting down metamagic shenanigans with the spell (both distant and twinned), and they nailed that. Booming Blade has two targets.
Serving as the point of origin doesn't mean you're a target.
That's a tough sell considering the entry on 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 rules use "target" to mean whatever is convenient at the time: either the point of origin or the creatures affected by the spell. Even "affected by the spell" isn't clearly enough defined for us to know if that means the creature that makes the booming blade attack or the creature that gets hit by it.
That's not a all a tough sell. Almost all spells that use a point of origin will state if the point of origin is a target or not (and what said targets are).
The point of origin argument does not hold up, as [person I was replying to] put it best: '"A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect".
Fireball states: "20-foot-radius sphere", sphere in D&D is defined as "You select a sphere's point of origin, and the sphere extends outward from that point. The sphere's size is expressed as a radius in feet that extends from the point. A sphere's point of origin is included in the sphere's area of effect." (Emphasis mine)
Burning Hands states: "15-foot cone", cone in D&D is defined as "A cone extends in a direction you choose from its point of origin. A cone's width at a given point along its length is equal to that point's distance from the point of origin. A cone's area of effect specifies its maximum length. A cone's point of origin is not included in the cone's area of effect, unless you decide otherwise." (Emphasis mine)
Booming Blade states: "melee attack", attacks in D&D is defined as "Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location." (Cut out most of the section cause it's irrelevant, emphasis mine). Note that it doesn't say that the point of origin can't be the target, because you can attack yourself with booming blade, but if you do so it would still be 1 target and Warcaster would be moot anyways since you can't get a Opportunity Attack on yourself.
If you want to argue that it somehow targets the point of origin as well, you would have to quote more specific rule that states so, and somehow rationale that all targets would take the thunder damage in a way that doesn't make Booming Blade the worse cantrip ever.
[cut]
Edit: Personal annotations are in [square brackets], the emphasis isn't exactly the same as in the original post but oh well.
Ah. I don't think you are making the argument that you think you are. Again, my argument is that the point of origin of the spell is a target, expressly, RAW. This is because the rules use target multiple ways, including the sentence I quoted that literally says my point.
Ah. I don't think you are making the argument that you think you are. Again, my argument is that the point of origin of the spell is a target, expressly, RAW. This is because the rules use target multiple ways, including the sentence I quoted that literally says my point.
And you're misunderstanding the text.
A point of origin can be the target of a spell, but it doesn't have to be.
The Point of Origin for a spell is always the caster unless a game effect would change that (like a familiar, etc). The effects of a spell might have a different point of origin but that is usually included in the spell description (except for AoE spells which are detailed in the general rules)
If a spell that is not an AoE has a point of origin for an effect that isn't the caster, it is usually described in the spell effect (some spells, like storm sphere and Bigby's Hand, have specific exceptions for ranged/melee spell attack PoO detailed in the spell description)
Serving as the point of origin is equated to the target per the range sentence.
Sure, for a spell like fireball, which isn’t relevant to this thread.
Ok, and for a spell like booming blade which is neither a cone or a line, then
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.
So my point that the rules seem to use "target" as both "point of origin" and "creature affected by the magic" seems to still be valid. Stating that they're absolutely separate still seems to be incorrect. Unless you're saying that Booming Blade affects the caster. But then what does that make the target of the creature that you attack as part of casting the spell?
If booming blade and green-flame blade are compatible with War Caster, then they have only one target. Or can have only one target, since GFB's secondary damage is now optional.
So, if there is a point of failure with Twinned Spell, it's that the range is still "Self" despite being expressed as "Self (5-foot radius)".
If booming blade and green-flame blade are compatible with War Caster, then they have only one target. Or can have only one target, since GFB's secondary damage is now optional.
So, if there is a point of failure with Twinned Spell, it's that the range is still "Self" despite being expressed as "Self (5-foot radius)".
But they're not compatible with War Caster, no matter what "an unofficial D&D site made by Zoltar" presents as a twitter post from a WOTC rules developer - SAC content is rules content, but tweets are not. RAW, both spells have at least two targets, and hence don't work with War Caster or Twinned Spell.
But they're not compatible with War Caster, no matter what "an unofficial D&D site made by Zoltar" presents as a twitter post from a WOTC rules developer - SAC content is rules content, but tweets are not. RAW, both spells have at least two targets, and hence don't work with War Caster or Twinned Spell.
That's only one interpretation of RAW.
The rules for Warcaster state that the spell "must target only that creature". That could mean that as long as the spell affects that creature and no other creatures then it doesn't matter if any objects or points in space are also targets of the spell.
Then, the rules for spellcasting range give two examples of spells with a range of self: where you are the sole creature targeted by the spell, or where a spell effect originates from the point in space you occupy but where you are not affected.
BB very much resembles the second kind of targeting, thus the only creature being targeted is your enemy and the spell is valid for Warcaster.
You may not agree with those interpretations, but they are valid meanings of the phrases in the rule book. They are therefore RAW until proven otherwise.
Serving as the point of origin is equated to the target per the range sentence.
Sure, for a spell like fireball, which isn’t relevant to this thread.
Ok, and for a spell like booming blade which is neither a cone or a line, then
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.
So my point that the rules seem to use "target" as both "point of origin" and "creature affected by the magic" seems to still be valid. Stating that they're absolutely separate still seems to be incorrect. Unless you're saying that Booming Blade affects the caster. But then what does that make the target of the creature that you attack as part of casting the spell?
Your new quote is about spells “such as the shield spell,” which again isn’t relevant to this thread.
I’ll stop beating around the bush and just state plainly the issue at play: “self (5-foot radius)” or whatever is an entirely incoherent range for the spells in question; it doesn’t actually have any general rule explaining what it means. What the spell actually describes is quite simple: a single-target spell with a range of 5 feet.
There’s not really any sensible way to reconcile the new range with both the description and the existing general range rules. So we have two options that I can see:
1) Disregard general range rules and force them to fit onto something very different from what they’re explicitly designed for. This is what you’re doing, and I’ll grant that it may be RAI.
2) Disregard the new range, because there’s no rule that explains what it means, and instead just use the actual spell text, which describes a single-target spell with a range of 5 feet. This is my preference because it actually makes sense.
I don’t think either option is RAW, because again, and this is the important issue here, there isn’t actually any RAW at all to tell us what “self (5-foot radius)” means.
Serving as the point of origin is equated to the target per the range sentence.
Sure, for a spell like fireball, which isn’t relevant to this thread.
Ok, and for a spell like booming blade which is neither a cone or a line, then
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.
So my point that the rules seem to use "target" as both "point of origin" and "creature affected by the magic" seems to still be valid. Stating that they're absolutely separate still seems to be incorrect. Unless you're saying that Booming Blade affects the caster. But then what does that make the target of the creature that you attack as part of casting the spell?
Your new quote is about spells “such as the shield spell,” which again isn’t relevant to this thread.
I’ll stop beating around the bush and just state plainly the issue at play: “self (5-foot radius)” or whatever is an entirely incoherent range for the spells in question; it doesn’t actually have any general rule explaining what it means. What the spell actually describes is quite simple: a single-target spell with a range of 5 feet.
There’s not really any sensible way to reconcile the new range with both the description and the existing general range rules. So we have two options that I can see:
1) Disregard general range rules and force them to fit onto something very different from what they’re explicitly designed for. This is what you’re doing, and I’ll grant that it may be RAI.
2) Disregard the new range, because there’s no rule that explains what it means, and instead just use the actual spell text, which describes a single-target spell with a range of 5 feet. This is my preference because it actually makes sense.
I don’t think either option is RAW, because again, and this is the important issue here, there isn’t actually any RAW at all to tell us what “self (5-foot radius)” means.
Yes, and no. By expressing the range as "Self (5-foot radius)" we know it's an area of effect that originates from the spellcaster. And this is congruous with every other such spell, such as burning hands, cone of cold, and thunderwave. And none of those spells include the spellcaster as a target. They cannot be used with Twinned Spell, or War Caster, because they don't target a single creature and can affect multiple creatures and/or objects.
As for what is RAI, we have the words straight from the head designer's mouth. (Or fingers, since he probably didn't use talk-to-text for a Tweet.) The spell booming bladecan be used with the War Caster feat. So, if we doubt this, then we have to ask ourselves why this is the case. Well, let's look at the third bullet of War Caster.
When a hostile creature's movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature.
I see two requirements: the spell must have a casting time of 1 action, and the spell must target only that creature. If Crawford says booming blade works with War Caster, then it can only have one target. This means the only possible target is the target of the melee weapon attack required by the spell. And that the spellcaster isn't a target.
The issue is whether or not a range of "Self (5-foot radius)" is the same as "Self". And, literally, they're not. But I can see why people say they're close enough that Twinned Spell should not apply. Here's a handy article on the subject from late last year. And that might even be the intention, since it brings the two spells more in-line with one another. Previously, booming blade could not only have its reach doubled to 10 feet with Spell Sniper, but it was compatible with both Twinned Spell and War Caster. Conversely, green-flame blade couldn't work with either two of the latter.
I don't think it breaks anything to allow Twinned Spell to work with them, but I'll be the first to admit it looks a little wonky. Here's a spell that lets you make two melee weapon attacks when you normally can't, and you still have your bonus action?!
Serving as the point of origin is equated to the target per the range sentence.
Sure, for a spell like fireball, which isn’t relevant to this thread.
Ok, and for a spell like booming blade which is neither a cone or a line, then
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.
So my point that the rules seem to use "target" as both "point of origin" and "creature affected by the magic" seems to still be valid. Stating that they're absolutely separate still seems to be incorrect. Unless you're saying that Booming Blade affects the caster. But then what does that make the target of the creature that you attack as part of casting the spell?
Your new quote is about spells “such as the shield spell,” which again isn’t relevant to this thread.
I’ll stop beating around the bush and just state plainly the issue at play: “self (5-foot radius)” or whatever is an entirely incoherent range for the spells in question; it doesn’t actually have any general rule explaining what it means. What the spell actually describes is quite simple: a single-target spell with a range of 5 feet.
There’s not really any sensible way to reconcile the new range with both the description and the existing general range rules. So we have two options that I can see:
1) Disregard general range rules and force them to fit onto something very different from what they’re explicitly designed for. This is what you’re doing, and I’ll grant that it may be RAI.
2) Disregard the new range, because there’s no rule that explains what it means, and instead just use the actual spell text, which describes a single-target spell with a range of 5 feet. This is my preference because it actually makes sense.
I don’t think either option is RAW, because again, and this is the important issue here, there isn’t actually any RAW at all to tell us what “self (5-foot radius)” means.
Yes, and no. By expressing the range as "Self (5-foot radius)" we know it's an area of effect that originates from the spellcaster. And this is congruous with every other such spell, such as burning hands, [Tooltip Not Found]. And none of those spells include the spellcaster as a target. They cannot be used with Twinned Spell, or War Caster, because they don't target a single creature and can affect multiple creatures and/or objects.
Except it's not an area of effect, and if it were, "5-foot radius" would make it a sphere, and it explicitly does not follow the rules for spheres. As I said, there are no rules that explain what "self (5-foot radius)" means.
Serving as the point of origin is equated to the target per the range sentence.
Sure, for a spell like fireball, which isn’t relevant to this thread.
Ok, and for a spell like booming blade which is neither a cone or a line, then
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.
So my point that the rules seem to use "target" as both "point of origin" and "creature affected by the magic" seems to still be valid. Stating that they're absolutely separate still seems to be incorrect. Unless you're saying that Booming Blade affects the caster. But then what does that make the target of the creature that you attack as part of casting the spell?
Your new quote is about spells “such as the shield spell,” which again isn’t relevant to this thread.
I’ll stop beating around the bush and just state plainly the issue at play: “self (5-foot radius)” or whatever is an entirely incoherent range for the spells in question; it doesn’t actually have any general rule explaining what it means. What the spell actually describes is quite simple: a single-target spell with a range of 5 feet.
There’s not really any sensible way to reconcile the new range with both the description and the existing general range rules. So we have two options that I can see:
1) Disregard general range rules and force them to fit onto something very different from what they’re explicitly designed for. This is what you’re doing, and I’ll grant that it may be RAI.
2) Disregard the new range, because there’s no rule that explains what it means, and instead just use the actual spell text, which describes a single-target spell with a range of 5 feet. This is my preference because it actually makes sense.
I don’t think either option is RAW, because again, and this is the important issue here, there isn’t actually any RAW at all to tell us what “self (5-foot radius)” means.
Yes, and no. By expressing the range as "Self (5-foot radius)" we know it's an area of effect that originates from the spellcaster. And this is congruous with every other such spell, such as burning hands, cone of cold, and thunderwave. And none of those spells include the spellcaster as a target. They cannot be used with Twinned Spell, or War Caster, because they don't target a single creature and can affect multiple creatures and/or objects.
Except it's not an area of effect, and if it were, "5-foot radius" would make it a sphere, and it explicitly does not follow the rules for spheres. As I said, there are no rules that explain what "self (5-foot radius)" means.
And what rules for spheres does it not follow?
Sphere
You select a sphere's point of origin, and the sphere extends outward from that point. The sphere's size is expressed as a radius in feet that extends from the point.
A sphere's point of origin is included in the sphere's area of effect.
Because that is it. And if you need someone else to tell you what "Self (5-foot radius)" means but not any other spell with an expressed range other than self that also makes use of a radius, then I weep for your table.
Serving as the point of origin is equated to the target per the range sentence.
Sure, for a spell like fireball, which isn’t relevant to this thread.
Ok, and for a spell like booming blade which is neither a cone or a line, then
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.
So my point that the rules seem to use "target" as both "point of origin" and "creature affected by the magic" seems to still be valid. Stating that they're absolutely separate still seems to be incorrect. Unless you're saying that Booming Blade affects the caster. But then what does that make the target of the creature that you attack as part of casting the spell?
Your new quote is about spells “such as the shield spell,” which again isn’t relevant to this thread.
I’ll stop beating around the bush and just state plainly the issue at play: “self (5-foot radius)” or whatever is an entirely incoherent range for the spells in question; it doesn’t actually have any general rule explaining what it means. What the spell actually describes is quite simple: a single-target spell with a range of 5 feet.
There’s not really any sensible way to reconcile the new range with both the description and the existing general range rules. So we have two options that I can see:
1) Disregard general range rules and force them to fit onto something very different from what they’re explicitly designed for. This is what you’re doing, and I’ll grant that it may be RAI.
2) Disregard the new range, because there’s no rule that explains what it means, and instead just use the actual spell text, which describes a single-target spell with a range of 5 feet. This is my preference because it actually makes sense.
I don’t think either option is RAW, because again, and this is the important issue here, there isn’t actually any RAW at all to tell us what “self (5-foot radius)” means.
Yes, and no. By expressing the range as "Self (5-foot radius)" we know it's an area of effect that originates from the spellcaster. And this is congruous with every other such spell, such as burning hands, cone of cold, and thunderwave. And none of those spells include the spellcaster as a target. They cannot be used with Twinned Spell, or War Caster, because they don't target a single creature and can affect multiple creatures and/or objects.
Except it's not an area of effect, and if it were, "5-foot radius" would make it a sphere, and it explicitly does not follow the rules for spheres. As I said, there are no rules that explain what "self (5-foot radius)" means.
And what rules for spheres does it not follow?
Sphere
You select a sphere's point of origin, and the sphere extends outward from that point. The sphere's size is expressed as a radius in feet that extends from the point.
A sphere's point of origin is included in the sphere's area of effect.
Because that is it. And if you need someone else to tell you what "Self (5-foot radius)" means but not any other spell with an expressed range other than self that also makes use of a radius, then I weep for your table.
First of all, the sphere is an area of effect; again, the spells we're discussing are not AoE spells. So that's the first rule they don't follow. The second is that you select the point of origin for a sphere.
I don't need anyone to tell me what "Self (5-foot radius)" means. The problem is that there aren't rules for it, and the only sensible thing it could mean doesn't make sense in context of the spells. I really suggest you try to be less of a dick to strangers on the internet.
If booming blade and green-flame blade are compatible with War Caster, then they have only one target. Or can have only one target, since GFB's secondary damage is now optional.
So, if there is a point of failure with Twinned Spell, it's that the range is still "Self" despite being expressed as "Self (5-foot radius)".
But they're not compatible with War Caster, no matter what "an unofficial D&D site made by Zoltar" presents as a twitter post from a WOTC rules developer - SAC content is rules content, but tweets are not. RAW, both spells have at least two targets, and hence don't work with War Caster or Twinned Spell.
By this logic, wouldn’t every spell that isn’t “Self” have two targets? Because every spell has an origin, defaulting to the caster unless otherwise specified. And thus nearly every spell starts with a target of “self”, and probably adds at least one other target (the affected area / creature / objects)?
The Tasha’s version seems to say: you must choose yourself as the point of origin, and you can Target a creature within 5ft to be affected by the spell.
If you’re saying that ANY definition of “target” means ALL limitations on “targets” apply anywhere the word target is used, regardless of intent or context (in a game designed to use natural language)… then you start having silly things happen; like requiring the empty spaces where Fireball lands to make a Dex save. RAW that empty space was the point of origin, and thus the target; and RAW the spell says all targets make Dex saves.
But Really, you have to use context to differentiate between location-target and affected-target and verb-target (among others).
War-caster says: The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature.
Does that mean it can only target the creature’s location, e.g. the range must be EXACTLY five feet, no more no less? And further constraining it so it can only affect that creature, making that creature the only target?
RAW and RAI here both interpret this as verb-target/affected-Target, “the spell can only affect that creature”. They’re only using one definition of “target” when counting how many “targets” are involved.
For booming blade, for me, this pretty much sums it up:
“If the target moves, the target takes thunder damage, and the spell ends.”
Is this possible without a spell? No, it’s part of the spell, not just a weapon melee attack.
Who is THE TARGET? Whomever you designated via the melee weapon attack. But again, we are now talking about the target of this specific SPELL, because melee weapon attacks don’t sheathe people in booming energy.
How many targets? THE target. One. Plain language here.
There is exactly one target of the spell, it must be within a 5ft radius centered on the caster, and it is designated via a melee weapon attack.
Serving as the point of origin is equated to the target per the range sentence.
Sure, for a spell like fireball, which isn’t relevant to this thread.
Ok, and for a spell like booming blade which is neither a cone or a line, then
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.
So my point that the rules seem to use "target" as both "point of origin" and "creature affected by the magic" seems to still be valid. Stating that they're absolutely separate still seems to be incorrect. Unless you're saying that Booming Blade affects the caster. But then what does that make the target of the creature that you attack as part of casting the spell?
Your new quote is about spells “such as the shield spell,” which again isn’t relevant to this thread.
I’ll stop beating around the bush and just state plainly the issue at play: “self (5-foot radius)” or whatever is an entirely incoherent range for the spells in question; it doesn’t actually have any general rule explaining what it means. What the spell actually describes is quite simple: a single-target spell with a range of 5 feet.
There’s not really any sensible way to reconcile the new range with both the description and the existing general range rules. So we have two options that I can see:
1) Disregard general range rules and force them to fit onto something very different from what they’re explicitly designed for. This is what you’re doing, and I’ll grant that it may be RAI.
2) Disregard the new range, because there’s no rule that explains what it means, and instead just use the actual spell text, which describes a single-target spell with a range of 5 feet. This is my preference because it actually makes sense.
I don’t think either option is RAW, because again, and this is the important issue here, there isn’t actually any RAW at all to tell us what “self (5-foot radius)” means.
Yes, and no. By expressing the range as "Self (5-foot radius)" we know it's an area of effect that originates from the spellcaster. And this is congruous with every other such spell, such as burning hands, cone of cold, and thunderwave. And none of those spells include the spellcaster as a target. They cannot be used with Twinned Spell, or War Caster, because they don't target a single creature and can affect multiple creatures and/or objects.
Except it's not an area of effect, and if it were, "5-foot radius" would make it a sphere, and it explicitly does not follow the rules for spheres. As I said, there are no rules that explain what "self (5-foot radius)" means.
And what rules for spheres does it not follow?
Sphere
You select a sphere's point of origin, and the sphere extends outward from that point. The sphere's size is expressed as a radius in feet that extends from the point.
A sphere's point of origin is included in the sphere's area of effect.
Because that is it. And if you need someone else to tell you what "Self (5-foot radius)" means but not any other spell with an expressed range other than self that also makes use of a radius, then I weep for your table.
First of all, the sphere is an area of effect; again, the spells we're discussing are not AoE spells. So that's the first rule they don't follow. The second is that you select the point of origin for a sphere.
I don't need anyone to tell me what "Self (5-foot radius)" means. The problem is that there aren't rules for it, and the only sensible thing it could mean doesn't make sense in context of the spells. I really suggest you try to be less of a dick to strangers on the internet.
Yes, the sphere creates an area of effect. No, not everything in that area must be affected. It just means the effect can take place within that area.
And if you don't need someone to tell you what "Self (5-foot radius)" means, then don't complain about the lack of guidance. Did you need rules for how every other range is described? No, of course not. So why is this any different? Because it's new? Everything was new 6 and a half years ago, too. But nobody was clamoring to Twitter to ask the developers what the range of "30 feet" for bless meant.
And I specifically chose bless as the example because you could express the range as "Self (30-ft radius)" and it would still work identically to before. This isn't hard.
You might think I'm being a d*ck, but you're acting like a child.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Serving as the point of origin doesn't mean you're a target.
But twinned spell doesn't work on spells that target self, so neither option is able to be twinned. Distant won't work either, as both spells target self, a distance that can't be doubled per Distant spell. (even the Self (5 foot radius) won't work, otherwise distant spell would double the radius of other spells, like fireball (which it decidedly doesn't)
also, the thread necromancy rules were lifted.
That's a tough sell considering the entry on range:
The rules use "target" to mean whatever is convenient at the time: either the point of origin or the creatures affected by the spell. Even "affected by the spell" isn't clearly enough defined for us to know if that means the creature that makes the booming blade attack or the creature that gets hit by it.
That's not a all a tough sell. Almost all spells that use a point of origin will state if the point of origin is a target or not (and what said targets are).
I'll just copy-paste my other post on the subject (I posted this in reply to if warcaster works with booming blade or not, so there's the context)
Edit: Personal annotations are in [square brackets], the emphasis isn't exactly the same as in the original post but oh well.
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.
Ah. I don't think you are making the argument that you think you are. Again, my argument is that the point of origin of the spell is a target, expressly, RAW. This is because the rules use target multiple ways, including the sentence I quoted that literally says my point.
And you're misunderstanding the text.
A point of origin can be the target of a spell, but it doesn't have to be.
Serving as the point of origin is equated to the target per the range sentence.
Sure, for a spell like fireball, which isn’t relevant to this thread.
The Point of Origin for a spell is always the caster unless a game effect would change that (like a familiar, etc). The effects of a spell might have a different point of origin but that is usually included in the spell description (except for AoE spells which are detailed in the general rules)
If a spell that is not an AoE has a point of origin for an effect that isn't the caster, it is usually described in the spell effect (some spells, like storm sphere and Bigby's Hand, have specific exceptions for ranged/melee spell attack PoO detailed in the spell description)
Ok, and for a spell like booming blade which is neither a cone or a line, then
So my point that the rules seem to use "target" as both "point of origin" and "creature affected by the magic" seems to still be valid. Stating that they're absolutely separate still seems to be incorrect. Unless you're saying that Booming Blade affects the caster. But then what does that make the target of the creature that you attack as part of casting the spell?
https://www.sageadvice.eu/the-booming-blade-spell-continues-to-work-with-the-war-caster-feat/
If booming blade and green-flame blade are compatible with War Caster, then they have only one target. Or can have only one target, since GFB's secondary damage is now optional.
So, if there is a point of failure with Twinned Spell, it's that the range is still "Self" despite being expressed as "Self (5-foot radius)".
But they're not compatible with War Caster, no matter what "an unofficial D&D site made by Zoltar" presents as a twitter post from a WOTC rules developer - SAC content is rules content, but tweets are not. RAW, both spells have at least two targets, and hence don't work with War Caster or Twinned Spell.
That's only one interpretation of RAW.
The rules for Warcaster state that the spell "must target only that creature". That could mean that as long as the spell affects that creature and no other creatures then it doesn't matter if any objects or points in space are also targets of the spell.
Then, the rules for spellcasting range give two examples of spells with a range of self: where you are the sole creature targeted by the spell, or where a spell effect originates from the point in space you occupy but where you are not affected.
BB very much resembles the second kind of targeting, thus the only creature being targeted is your enemy and the spell is valid for Warcaster.
You may not agree with those interpretations, but they are valid meanings of the phrases in the rule book. They are therefore RAW until proven otherwise.
Your new quote is about spells “such as the shield spell,” which again isn’t relevant to this thread.
I’ll stop beating around the bush and just state plainly the issue at play: “self (5-foot radius)” or whatever is an entirely incoherent range for the spells in question; it doesn’t actually have any general rule explaining what it means. What the spell actually describes is quite simple: a single-target spell with a range of 5 feet.
There’s not really any sensible way to reconcile the new range with both the description and the existing general range rules. So we have two options that I can see:
1) Disregard general range rules and force them to fit onto something very different from what they’re explicitly designed for. This is what you’re doing, and I’ll grant that it may be RAI.
2) Disregard the new range, because there’s no rule that explains what it means, and instead just use the actual spell text, which describes a single-target spell with a range of 5 feet. This is my preference because it actually makes sense.
I don’t think either option is RAW, because again, and this is the important issue here, there isn’t actually any RAW at all to tell us what “self (5-foot radius)” means.
Yes, and no. By expressing the range as "Self (5-foot radius)" we know it's an area of effect that originates from the spellcaster. And this is congruous with every other such spell, such as burning hands, cone of cold, and thunderwave. And none of those spells include the spellcaster as a target. They cannot be used with Twinned Spell, or War Caster, because they don't target a single creature and can affect multiple creatures and/or objects.
As for what is RAI, we have the words straight from the head designer's mouth. (Or fingers, since he probably didn't use talk-to-text for a Tweet.) The spell booming blade can be used with the War Caster feat. So, if we doubt this, then we have to ask ourselves why this is the case. Well, let's look at the third bullet of War Caster.
I see two requirements: the spell must have a casting time of 1 action, and the spell must target only that creature. If Crawford says booming blade works with War Caster, then it can only have one target. This means the only possible target is the target of the melee weapon attack required by the spell. And that the spellcaster isn't a target.
The issue is whether or not a range of "Self (5-foot radius)" is the same as "Self". And, literally, they're not. But I can see why people say they're close enough that Twinned Spell should not apply. Here's a handy article on the subject from late last year. And that might even be the intention, since it brings the two spells more in-line with one another. Previously, booming blade could not only have its reach doubled to 10 feet with Spell Sniper, but it was compatible with both Twinned Spell and War Caster. Conversely, green-flame blade couldn't work with either two of the latter.
I don't think it breaks anything to allow Twinned Spell to work with them, but I'll be the first to admit it looks a little wonky. Here's a spell that lets you make two melee weapon attacks when you normally can't, and you still have your bonus action?!
Except it's not an area of effect, and if it were, "5-foot radius" would make it a sphere, and it explicitly does not follow the rules for spheres. As I said, there are no rules that explain what "self (5-foot radius)" means.
And what rules for spheres does it not follow?
Because that is it. And if you need someone else to tell you what "Self (5-foot radius)" means but not any other spell with an expressed range other than self that also makes use of a radius, then I weep for your table.
First of all, the sphere is an area of effect; again, the spells we're discussing are not AoE spells. So that's the first rule they don't follow. The second is that you select the point of origin for a sphere.
I don't need anyone to tell me what "Self (5-foot radius)" means. The problem is that there aren't rules for it, and the only sensible thing it could mean doesn't make sense in context of the spells. I really suggest you try to be less of a dick to strangers on the internet.
By this logic, wouldn’t every spell that isn’t “Self” have two targets? Because every spell has an origin, defaulting to the caster unless otherwise specified. And thus nearly every spell starts with a target of “self”, and probably adds at least one other target (the affected area / creature / objects)?
The Tasha’s version seems to say: you must choose yourself as the point of origin, and you can Target a creature within 5ft to be affected by the spell.
If you’re saying that ANY definition of “target” means ALL limitations on “targets” apply anywhere the word target is used, regardless of intent or context (in a game designed to use natural language)… then you start having silly things happen; like requiring the empty spaces where Fireball lands to make a Dex save. RAW that empty space was the point of origin, and thus the target; and RAW the spell says all targets make Dex saves.
But Really, you have to use context to differentiate between location-target and affected-target and verb-target (among others).
War-caster says: The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature.
Does that mean it can only target the creature’s location, e.g. the range must be EXACTLY five feet, no more no less? And further constraining it so it can only affect that creature, making that creature the only target?
RAW and RAI here both interpret this as verb-target/affected-Target, “the spell can only affect that creature”. They’re only using one definition of “target” when counting how many “targets” are involved.
For booming blade, for me, this pretty much sums it up:
“If the target moves, the target takes thunder damage, and the spell ends.”
Is this possible without a spell? No, it’s part of the spell, not just a weapon melee attack.
Who is THE TARGET? Whomever you designated via the melee weapon attack. But again, we are now talking about the target of this specific SPELL, because melee weapon attacks don’t sheathe people in booming energy.
How many targets? THE target. One. Plain language here.
There is exactly one target of the spell, it must be within a 5ft radius centered on the caster, and it is designated via a melee weapon attack.
Yes, the sphere creates an area of effect. No, not everything in that area must be affected. It just means the effect can take place within that area.
And if you don't need someone to tell you what "Self (5-foot radius)" means, then don't complain about the lack of guidance. Did you need rules for how every other range is described? No, of course not. So why is this any different? Because it's new? Everything was new 6 and a half years ago, too. But nobody was clamoring to Twitter to ask the developers what the range of "30 feet" for bless meant.
And I specifically chose bless as the example because you could express the range as "Self (30-ft radius)" and it would still work identically to before. This isn't hard.
You might think I'm being a d*ck, but you're acting like a child.