The plain RAW of Section 10 states in no uncertain terms that the target OF THE SPELL must be within the spells range. Any analysis that contradicts that is wrong, until and unless that sentence is errata’d.
That is not to say that the target of the spells magical effect is always the target of the spell. Goodberry is as good an example as any: target of the spell is your own hand, summoning berries. But the spell creates a separate magical effect (berries), that in turn can effect (perhaps even “target,” if you care to use that word) other creatures eating them. But that doesn’t mean they’re the target of “the spell” itself.
Im not sure what went down in the last 6 months/10 pages, but this continues to be true. “The target” of a spell is where it first goes, within range. It may then have a secondary spell effect that goes farther or hits other effect targets in an AOE (see Fireball). “The target” of BB and GFB is self (one creature, yourself). It then has a secondary effect that lets you hit a secondary target within a 5-foot sphere.
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.
I am not advocating for either of these. I am only advocating for not using false precision in language when such precision is obviously absent from the rule text others are referencing. Target is used as "the thing at the end of the range" as well as "creatures or objects affected by the spell."
The plain RAW of Section 10 states in no uncertain terms that the target OF THE SPELL must be within the spells range. Any analysis that contradicts that is wrong, until and unless that sentence is errata’d.
That is not to say that the target of the spells magical effect is always the target of the spell. Goodberry is as good an example as any: target of the spell is your own hand, summoning berries. But the spell creates a separate magical effect (berries), that in turn can effect (perhaps even “target,” if you care to use that word) other creatures eating them. But that doesn’t mean they’re the target of “the spell” itself.
Im not sure what went down in the last 6 months/10 pages, but this continues to be true. “The target” of a spell is where it first goes, within range. It may then have a secondary spell effect that goes farther or hits other effect targets in an AOE (see Fireball). “The target” of BB and GFB is self (one creature, yourself). It then has a secondary effect that lets you hit a secondary target within a 5-foot sphere.
”Self” is “where the spell goes” and something within 5ft is what the spell affects - not for a secondary effect, but for the only effect.
PHB on Targets: A spell's *description* tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect.
Does Booming Blade affect objects? No
Does it target creatures? Yes
Does it Affect an Area? not per the description. Description tells me to target one creature.
note: Range is not the same as Target; if it were, every range would need to specify creature / object / area, and they don’t, at least not consistently. The descriptive text tells you this.
The range tells me where I put it (in my space, basically), the description tells me what I can affect (exactly one creature within 5ft of where I put the spell).
Because Warcaster “target” is about what you can affect, not where you put the spell, and Booming Blade very clearly tells you what happens to THE target, it works.
Twinning may not, because it specifically speaks to a “range of self”… I think it’s reasonable to say “Range: self (5ft)” = “range of self for point of origin, affects at least one target within 5ft, see description for details”.
If I were programming, though, my code might do weird crud if I assumed Self = Self (5ft).
Does it Affect an Area? not per the description. Description tells me to target one creature.
Yes, it does, using your definition of affect an area. It affects a 5-foot radius area. How it affects that area is specified in the spell itself, but there's no question it's an AOE spell. All spells with range Self (X radius) are area of effect:
Antilife Shell
Antimagic Field
Arms of Hadar
Aura of Life
Aura of Purity
Aura of Vitality
Booming Blade
Circle of Power
Control Weather
Crusader's Mantle
Destructive Wave
Globe of Invulnerability
Green-Flame Blade
Lightning Lure
Speak with Plants
Spirit Guardians
Sword Burst
I artificially removed all named shapes from this list that are range Self - i.e. Range Self (AOE shape other than radius). Here's that list, since all of them are AOEs, in the same way - being a named shape isn't what makes or breaks an AOE.
Does it Affect an Area? not per the description. Description tells me to target one creature.
Yes, it does, using your definition of affect an area. It affects a 5-foot radius area. How it affects that area is specified in the spell itself, but there's no question it's an AOE spell. All spells with range Self (X radius) are area of effect:
Antilife Shell
Antimagic Field
Arms of Hadar
Aura of Life
Aura of Purity
Aura of Vitality
Booming Blade
Circle of Power
Control Weather
Crusader's Mantle
Destructive Wave
Globe of Invulnerability
Green-Flame Blade
Lightning Lure
Speak with Plants
Spirit Guardians
Sword Burst
I artificially removed all named shapes from this list that are range Self - i.e. Range Self (AOE shape other than radius). Here's that list, since all of them are AOEs, in the same way - being a named shape isn't what makes or breaks an AOE.
Burning Hands
Color Spray
Cone of Cold
Conjure Barrage
Fear
Frost Fingers
Gravity Fissure
Gust of Wind
Leomund's Tiny Hut
Lightning Bolt
Prismatic Spray
Pulse Wave
Sunbeam
Tasha's Caustic Brew
Thunderwave
Likewise, *all* of these spells depend on their descriptive text to specify them as area of affect spells.
RAW: area of effect = spells that cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.
If you can tell me how more than creature is affected by Booming Blade, and what the Effect is on each one, I’ll concede the point.
Rationally, it doesn't, except in the most trivial way. Which is why it made sense when their range was "5 feet", or it would have made sense if that had been errata'd to be "melee reach". But here we are, a world where the design team decided that the spell had a target of "self," so we have to find tortuous explanations for what exactly the effect on your "self" is. If I had to guess, you're enchanting the first target (your self) with potential energy, which you then deliver to the secondary effect target (the creature you attack). But, it's a stretch, right? But no matter how implausible, its the only possible conclusion because (1) the spell has a range of "Self", and (2) Chapter 10 is explicit that the target of a spell is found within its range, and that (3) specifically, spells with a range of self target your self.
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range.
and
Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.
The RAI clearly doesn't match the RAW on this one, they created a real logical paradox, so do with it what you will. But RAW, it's a "self" spell now, meaning (1) you can not cast it with War Caster because it does not target "only" the enemy you attack (which RAI they clearly didn't mean to have happen), and (2) you can't Distant Spell (not range 5 or greater) or Twinned Spell (more than one target, since self and enemy are both targets) (which WAS clearly RAI what they hoped to accomplish, but I don't understand why they found that so objectionable), and (3) you now CAN Share Spells it as a Beast Master (which again, RAI I would be surprised if they realized they were opening up Booming Blade to Beast Companions, further proof they created unintentional consequences from insufficiently playtesting this change).
Its a mess, and honestly not worth defending. Just RAF it however you want it at your table.
Rationally, it doesn't, except in the most trivial way. Which is why it made sense when their range was "5 feet", or it would have made sense if that had been errata'd to be "melee reach". But here we are, a world where the design team decided that the spell had a target of "self," so we have to find tortuous explanations for what exactly the effect on your "self" is. If I had to guess, you're enchanting the first target (your self) with potential energy, which you then deliver to the secondary effect target (the creature you attack). But, it's a stretch, right? But no matter how implausible, its the only possible conclusion because (1) the spell has a range of "Self", and (2) Chapter 10 is explicit that the target of a spell is found within its range, and that (3) specifically, spells with a range of self target your self.
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range.
and
Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.
The RAI clearly doesn't match the RAW on this one, they created a real logical paradox, so do with it what you will. But RAW, it's a "self" spell now, meaning (1) you can not cast it with War Caster because it does not target "only" the enemy you attack (which RAI they clearly didn't mean to have happen), and (2) you can't Distant Spell (not range 5 or greater) or Twinned Spell (more than one target, since self and enemy are both targets) (which WAS clearly RAI what they hoped to accomplish, but I don't understand why they found that so objectionable), and (3) you now CAN Share Spells it as a Beast Master (which again, RAI I would be surprised if they realized they were opening up Booming Blade to Beast Companions, further proof they created unintentional consequences from insufficiently playtesting this change).
Its a mess, and honestly not worth defending. Just RAF it however you want it at your table.
A thing only does what it says it does.
You're only the target of the spell if the spell description says you are. If the spell description doesn't designate you as a target, then you're not the target.
@ Chicken_Champ [and Juonich1983] I think that's a reasonable take on it... Caster targets themselves, forces themselves to make a melee weapon attack, and so forth. Almost like a smite spell that doesn't require concentration, works as part of the weapon attack, but can't make use of metamagic.
It's strikingly vague and poorly worded for something that the experts supposedly put a lot of thought into, and seems to be solving a non-existent problem. Or rather, it's solving the wrong problem (how people use rests vs. how designers intended). If you have 6-8 encounters per long rest, that fancy metamagic is gone halfway through, while the martials start to shine. But that's a whole different topic...
Except the spellcaster, in this instance, isn't targeting themself with the spell. And that's not up for interpretation. The only target explicitly given is the recipient of the melee weapon attack. That's the only target of the spell.
What makes you say that? Those spells don't call anyone else the target, and Chapter 10 is quite clear that "Range" (Self) and "Area of Effect" (5 foot radius) are two different things. "The Target" (or at least, a target) must be found within the range, so the caster is indeed a target of all of those spells.
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range.
Meanwhile, an Area of Effect only requires that a spell may affect more creatures within that area (if you want to call them targets too, okay, that's a whole other conversation because different spells use different terms). But they aren't "the (only) target" if the range is self.
Spells such as burning hands and cone of cold cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.
Look, this doesn't feel good to talk about, because it's inconsistently referenced in spells, and the RAI is fuzzy. But here's what we know:
A target can be a creature, object, or a point of origin.
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range.
We're given some examples of range, and in all of them, the target is in that range. Fireball is actually very relevant here, because Chapter 10 is explicit that "the target" of Fireball is "the point in space where the ball of fire erupts." Now, reading Fireball, the spell itself goes on to describe the creatures caught in the 20-foot radius blast "targets," so Fireball is a perfect example of how a spell description that describes one or more "targets" that are affected outside of its range should not be read to contradict the general rule that "the target" of the spell is within it (even if that "target" is only a point of origin, in the case of Fireball, or a caster, in the case of Booming Blade, that aren't meaningfully affected by the spell).
There must be a target within range, even if that target is just a point of origin or a caster. The existence of other secondary targets, whether they're outside of the range in an area of effect, or creatures that are targeted by secondary effects of the spell, don't change that.
Warcaster, Twinned Spell, and Distant Spell are written in very black-and-white terms, that don't go into nuance about whether they're worried about primary targets vs. secondary effect targets, or about an absolute range of self or self as a range for a point of origin for a larger area of effect. Maybe, Warcaster was RAI that it should only accept spells that "effect" one creature, rather than "target" one creature? That would open BB back up maybe? But as it stands, they turned off a lightswitch (BB and GFB being Twinned Spell and Distant Spell eligible) with a sledgehammer, and broke some things they didn't intend to (Warcaster ineligible, Share Spells Beastmaster eligible).
Honestly, Warcaster (attacks of opportunity), Twinned Spell (reproduce Extra Attack for a Gish or Eldritch Knight), and Distant Spell (allow polearms and whips) were all core seemingly-intended applications of GFB and BB in the first place, so the motivation for destroying what little Eldritch Knight/Gish functionality existed with GFB and BB is... bizarre, and incomprehensible. There was no overpowered combination of these spells, just a way to have an EK do damage on curve with a cantrip that they'd otherwise accomplish with regular attacks. Sad, really.
You are twisting yourself into knots to argue your position, rather than question it. And you should question it.
You're not arguing with me. You're arguing with the developers who wrote the rules. Jetisson those rules, if you want, but at least understand why they view the rules they wrote a particular way.
Your incuriousness won't serve you in the long run.
I'm not twisting myself into knots, I'm just playing the cards I'm dealt. The target of a spell with a range of self is self, even when those spells create an AOE which effects (or even targets) creatures outside that range. That just is what it is what it is. It's hardly unintended or surprising, "where is the target?" is literally the only function that Range as a concept even performs. If JC and his team wanted the target to be 5 feet away, they should have left the range at 5 feet instead of Self. If they didn't want it to be 5 feet away, because Twinned Spell and Distant Spell were keeping them up at night, then they need to recognize that they broke Warcaster as collateral damage.
I'm not twisting myself into knots, I'm just playing the cards I'm dealt. The target of a spell with a range of self is self, even when those spells create an AOE which effects (or even targets) creatures outside that range. That just is what it is what it is. It's hardly unintended or surprising, "where is the target?" is literally the only function that Range as a concept even performs. If JC and his team wanted the target to be 5 feet away, they should have left the range at 5 feet instead of Self. If they didn't want it to be 5 feet away, because Twinned Spell and Distant Spell were keeping them up at night, then they need to recognize that they broke Warcaster as collateral damage.
Except we know that's not the casr because Booming Blade still works with War Caster. That means it can only have one target and it cannot target "Self".
So, yeah, you're ignoring the rules and twisting yourself into knots to justify all kinds of nonsense.
Like the idea that Conjure Barrage works with the Beast Master's companion and Share Spells.
It doesn't work with War Caster, we don't "know that," that's literally the issue that kicked off this whole thread last year :p
By the rules as written in the actual rulebooks, it doesn't, and that's all I'm interested in. All the SAC entry does is show that the RAW isn't RAI, and that they need to publish another errata to fix their blunder.
Rather than fighting about BB, let's back up a second:
Fireball creates an AOE around a point of origin. Burning Hands creates an AOE fanning out from a point of origin. Do you agree that they're alike in that respect?
Fireball can throw that point of origin out to a point within 150 feet, because its range is 150 feet. Burning Hands cannot throw that point of origin out, it is locked to "self." Do you agree that the point of origin of Fireball is a point within 150 feet, and the point of origin for Burning Hands is the caster?
Chapter 10 is explicit that this point of origin be considered "the target" of Fireball, even though Fireball doesn't use that language within its spell description to describe its origin, and in fact calls something else targets (the creatures caught in the 20-foot radius blast). Insofar as Chapter 10 felt it appropriate to describe that "the target" of Fireball is the point of origin, it seems like it must have been to illustrate a rule that a point of origin is a target, because otherwise Chapter 10 would have had no basis to say that about Fireball.
Do you hold that the point of origin of Fireball is "the target", but the point of origin for Burning Hands is not the target, despite range being the only real difference between how each describes that point? If so, what is your basis for doing so, other than not being comfortable with "the target" of Burning Hands being the caster? Is there any text that you can quote that tells you that there would be a reason for Burning Hands' target to be something other than the caster???
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.
How are you to say I'm not making the argument that I think I am, then to say I'm wrong and not even discuss what I brought up? At the very least explain why you think it's irrelevant. It's even worse because later on everyone begins talking about warcaster including you, so to say that the warcaster post is irrelevant, then go on to make your own posts on warcaster still without addressing mine, is completely absurd (and besides, warcaster is the context, not the argument. The argument was that if BB had a point of origin, then it would only have 1 target, which is very valid for this conversation).
Your quote states that a target must be in range of a spell. That has absolutely nothing to do with Point of Origin, point of origin isn't mentioned.
All that quote states is that the target of the spell must be in range. It doesn't say that the target is the point of origin.
(if your arguing that the range is self thus it must target the point of origin, that is not from the above rule that "the target must be in range", but rather a specific rule from the self range which I will get to later. Besides BB very clearly has a 5 ft range built in there, and even if it didn't it has a specific statement that overrides the range anyways "one creature within 5 feet of you".)
Either way I've reread the rules and think I have a better understanding of the rules than I did when I wrote that. Let me go over what self spells are, which reminder are not a part of the AoE rules that everyone seems so keen to discuss right now. (source)
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.
Booming Blade does not fall under the first category. As by absolutely nobody here's (i would hope anyways) definition of Booming Blade is the user the only person who takes damage, and Booming Blade states it can affect one creature with in 5 feet, which I wouldn't say counts as "only you"
The argument that Booming Blade isn't a cone or line of effect does exist, however I would say that is completely unintended. If you do want to go by absolute RAW, then Booming Blade wouldn't fall under either category and thus the range of the spell is invalid. If you go and remove the "cones or lines of effect" restriction (which seems to be RAI going by sage advice on BB & Warcaster), good on you problem solved (it's to be noted the cones or lines restriction is there because they are the only aoes that don't by default target the point of origin, because the devs at the time forgot to consider spells which ranges defined in feet).
If you don't, then it just falls under "Most spells have ranges expressed in feet" because nothing states that a self spell cannot be a range expressed in feet, and the range of BB is very clearly expressed in feet "Self (5 ft)". As such the above is invalid as it would be then governed by the same rules as Fire Bolt. Bit iffy I know, I'll come back to it later.
The actual rules definition of a point of origin, further supports this (source).
Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how you position its point of origin. Typically, a point of origin is a point in space, but some spells have an area whose origin is a creature or an object.
A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover.
Let me repeat that, "Every area of effect has a point of origin", in other words, Booming Blade cannot have a point of origin as it is not a area of effect and there is no specific rule that states it has a point of origin. (I admit this messes up the RAI of BB having a point of origin that isn't targeted, but I'm sure JC has an answer to that)
This is why how points of origin and how they relate to BB is very foggy, why would you define if a point of origin is targeted by spells that don't have points of origins?
As Jounichi made me realize in Maximizing Booming Blade forum (idk if they meant to or not, that's up to them), BB's range being expressed in feet and not under any general self rules works fine, same with not having a point of origin, as both changes nothing. The spell range still states "Self (5 ft)", which means anyone within 5 feet is technically within range of the spell, and so are yourself (note, again the above targeting rules state that the target must be in range of the spell, not that everyone in range is the target). Thus it's functions the exact same a normal 5 feet except WoTC forcing the flavor of the spell coming from you into RAW.
Even if your a bit iffy on that (very understandable, I am a bit iffy about it to if I'm being honest), it doesn't matter anyway since BB's spell description explicitly states "one creature within 5 feet of you" which overrides the targeting rules anyways (as mentioned by the Spell Sniper + BB builds, may they rest in peace).
If you do argue that BB does have a point of origin, again, I've made the argument that if BB did have a point of origin it would still only target one person.
Edit: I would advise Chicken_Champ to read the above forum post, because I made that in reply to someone who literally asked the exact same thing Chicken is asking rn about Fireball and Burning Hands, even the same spells no less. The short answer is that it's written down what AoEs target a point of origin and which ones don't in the spells chapter. Hint, both fireball and burning hands are accounted for in there.
Made this post in a rush so sorry if it's not the most eloquent or comes off as a little rude. If so then it's not intentional.
I'm not in the mood for hints, or for page long posts that tell me to read another forum thread rather than answering the question themself:
The point of origin of a Fireball is the target of Fireball, not because of any specific language in Fireball, but as an example provided in Chapter 10 describing how range and targets generally function. Do you believe that the point of origin of a Burning Hands is not the target of Burning Hands? If not, why not, with what support?
Im not sure what went down in the last 6 months/10 pages, but this continues to be true. “The target” of a spell is where it first goes, within range. It may then have a secondary spell effect that goes farther or hits other effect targets in an AOE (see Fireball). “The target” of BB and GFB is self (one creature, yourself). It then has a secondary effect that lets you hit a secondary target within a 5-foot sphere.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I am not advocating for either of these. I am only advocating for not using false precision in language when such precision is obviously absent from the rule text others are referencing. Target is used as "the thing at the end of the range" as well as "creatures or objects affected by the spell."
”Self” is “where the spell goes” and something within 5ft is what the spell affects - not for a secondary effect, but for the only effect.
PHB on Targets: A spell's *description* tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect.
Does Booming Blade affect objects? No
Does it target creatures? Yes
Does it Affect an Area? not per the description. Description tells me to target one creature.
note: Range is not the same as Target; if it were, every range would need to specify creature / object / area, and they don’t, at least not consistently. The descriptive text tells you this.
The range tells me where I put it (in my space, basically), the description tells me what I can affect (exactly one creature within 5ft of where I put the spell).
Because Warcaster “target” is about what you can affect, not where you put the spell, and Booming Blade very clearly tells you what happens to THE target, it works.
Twinning may not, because it specifically speaks to a “range of self”… I think it’s reasonable to say “Range: self (5ft)” = “range of self for point of origin, affects at least one target within 5ft, see description for details”.
If I were programming, though, my code might do weird crud if I assumed Self = Self (5ft).
Yes, it does, using your definition of affect an area. It affects a 5-foot radius area. How it affects that area is specified in the spell itself, but there's no question it's an AOE spell. All spells with range Self (X radius) are area of effect:
I artificially removed all named shapes from this list that are range Self - i.e. Range Self (AOE shape other than radius). Here's that list, since all of them are AOEs, in the same way - being a named shape isn't what makes or breaks an AOE.
Likewise, *all* of these spells depend on their descriptive text to specify them as area of affect spells.
RAW: area of effect = spells that cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.
If you can tell me how more than creature is affected by Booming Blade, and what the Effect is on each one, I’ll concede the point.
Rationally, it doesn't, except in the most trivial way. Which is why it made sense when their range was "5 feet", or it would have made sense if that had been errata'd to be "melee reach". But here we are, a world where the design team decided that the spell had a target of "self," so we have to find tortuous explanations for what exactly the effect on your "self" is. If I had to guess, you're enchanting the first target (your self) with potential energy, which you then deliver to the secondary effect target (the creature you attack). But, it's a stretch, right? But no matter how implausible, its the only possible conclusion because (1) the spell has a range of "Self", and (2) Chapter 10 is explicit that the target of a spell is found within its range, and that (3) specifically, spells with a range of self target your self.
and
The RAI clearly doesn't match the RAW on this one, they created a real logical paradox, so do with it what you will. But RAW, it's a "self" spell now, meaning (1) you can not cast it with War Caster because it does not target "only" the enemy you attack (which RAI they clearly didn't mean to have happen), and (2) you can't Distant Spell (not range 5 or greater) or Twinned Spell (more than one target, since self and enemy are both targets) (which WAS clearly RAI what they hoped to accomplish, but I don't understand why they found that so objectionable), and (3) you now CAN Share Spells it as a Beast Master (which again, RAI I would be surprised if they realized they were opening up Booming Blade to Beast Companions, further proof they created unintentional consequences from insufficiently playtesting this change).
Its a mess, and honestly not worth defending. Just RAF it however you want it at your table.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
A thing only does what it says it does.
You're only the target of the spell if the spell description says you are. If the spell description doesn't designate you as a target, then you're not the target.
@ Chicken_Champ [and Juonich1983] I think that's a reasonable take on it... Caster targets themselves, forces themselves to make a melee weapon attack, and so forth. Almost like a smite spell that doesn't require concentration, works as part of the weapon attack, but can't make use of metamagic.
It's strikingly vague and poorly worded for something that the experts supposedly put a lot of thought into, and seems to be solving a non-existent problem. Or rather, it's solving the wrong problem (how people use rests vs. how designers intended). If you have 6-8 encounters per long rest, that fancy metamagic is gone halfway through, while the martials start to shine. But that's a whole different topic...
Except the spellcaster, in this instance, isn't targeting themself with the spell. And that's not up for interpretation. The only target explicitly given is the recipient of the melee weapon attack. That's the only target of the spell.
I agree, except for chapter 10, which tells us the target of a self range spell IS self, so we have two targets after all.
And around and around we go. Errata is needed to fix the errata.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
And the ranges of "Self" and "Self (XYZ)" are not the same.
The spellcaster is not the target of burning hands, cone of cold, lightning bolt, sword burst, thunderclap, or any other similarly formatted spell. They are merely the point of origin.
What makes you say that? Those spells don't call anyone else the target, and Chapter 10 is quite clear that "Range" (Self) and "Area of Effect" (5 foot radius) are two different things. "The Target" (or at least, a target) must be found within the range, so the caster is indeed a target of all of those spells.
Meanwhile, an Area of Effect only requires that a spell may affect more creatures within that area (if you want to call them targets too, okay, that's a whole other conversation because different spells use different terms). But they aren't "the (only) target" if the range is self.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Look, this doesn't feel good to talk about, because it's inconsistently referenced in spells, and the RAI is fuzzy. But here's what we know:
There must be a target within range, even if that target is just a point of origin or a caster. The existence of other secondary targets, whether they're outside of the range in an area of effect, or creatures that are targeted by secondary effects of the spell, don't change that.
Warcaster, Twinned Spell, and Distant Spell are written in very black-and-white terms, that don't go into nuance about whether they're worried about primary targets vs. secondary effect targets, or about an absolute range of self or self as a range for a point of origin for a larger area of effect. Maybe, Warcaster was RAI that it should only accept spells that "effect" one creature, rather than "target" one creature? That would open BB back up maybe? But as it stands, they turned off a lightswitch (BB and GFB being Twinned Spell and Distant Spell eligible) with a sledgehammer, and broke some things they didn't intend to (Warcaster ineligible, Share Spells Beastmaster eligible).
Honestly, Warcaster (attacks of opportunity), Twinned Spell (reproduce Extra Attack for a Gish or Eldritch Knight), and Distant Spell (allow polearms and whips) were all core seemingly-intended applications of GFB and BB in the first place, so the motivation for destroying what little Eldritch Knight/Gish functionality existed with GFB and BB is... bizarre, and incomprehensible. There was no overpowered combination of these spells, just a way to have an EK do damage on curve with a cantrip that they'd otherwise accomplish with regular attacks. Sad, really.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You are twisting yourself into knots to argue your position, rather than question it. And you should question it.
You're not arguing with me. You're arguing with the developers who wrote the rules. Jetisson those rules, if you want, but at least understand why they view the rules they wrote a particular way.
Your incuriousness won't serve you in the long run.
I'm not twisting myself into knots, I'm just playing the cards I'm dealt. The target of a spell with a range of self is self, even when those spells create an AOE which effects (or even targets) creatures outside that range. That just is what it is what it is. It's hardly unintended or surprising, "where is the target?" is literally the only function that Range as a concept even performs. If JC and his team wanted the target to be 5 feet away, they should have left the range at 5 feet instead of Self. If they didn't want it to be 5 feet away, because Twinned Spell and Distant Spell were keeping them up at night, then they need to recognize that they broke Warcaster as collateral damage.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Except we know that's not the casr because Booming Blade still works with War Caster. That means it can only have one target and it cannot target "Self".
So, yeah, you're ignoring the rules and twisting yourself into knots to justify all kinds of nonsense.
Like the idea that Conjure Barrage works with the Beast Master's companion and Share Spells.
It doesn't work with War Caster, we don't "know that," that's literally the issue that kicked off this whole thread last year :p
By the rules as written in the actual rulebooks, it doesn't, and that's all I'm interested in. All the SAC entry does is show that the RAW isn't RAI, and that they need to publish another errata to fix their blunder.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Rather than fighting about BB, let's back up a second:
Fireball creates an AOE around a point of origin. Burning Hands creates an AOE fanning out from a point of origin. Do you agree that they're alike in that respect?
Fireball can throw that point of origin out to a point within 150 feet, because its range is 150 feet. Burning Hands cannot throw that point of origin out, it is locked to "self." Do you agree that the point of origin of Fireball is a point within 150 feet, and the point of origin for Burning Hands is the caster?
Chapter 10 is explicit that this point of origin be considered "the target" of Fireball, even though Fireball doesn't use that language within its spell description to describe its origin, and in fact calls something else targets (the creatures caught in the 20-foot radius blast). Insofar as Chapter 10 felt it appropriate to describe that "the target" of Fireball is the point of origin, it seems like it must have been to illustrate a rule that a point of origin is a target, because otherwise Chapter 10 would have had no basis to say that about Fireball.
Do you hold that the point of origin of Fireball is "the target", but the point of origin for Burning Hands is not the target, despite range being the only real difference between how each describes that point? If so, what is your basis for doing so, other than not being comfortable with "the target" of Burning Hands being the caster? Is there any text that you can quote that tells you that there would be a reason for Burning Hands' target to be something other than the caster???
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
How are you to say I'm not making the argument that I think I am, then to say I'm wrong and not even discuss what I brought up? At the very least explain why you think it's irrelevant. It's even worse because later on everyone begins talking about warcaster including you, so to say that the warcaster post is irrelevant, then go on to make your own posts on warcaster still without addressing mine, is completely absurd (and besides, warcaster is the context, not the argument. The argument was that if BB had a point of origin, then it would only have 1 target, which is very valid for this conversation).
Your quote states that a target must be in range of a spell. That has absolutely nothing to do with Point of Origin, point of origin isn't mentioned.
All that quote states is that the target of the spell must be in range. It doesn't say that the target is the point of origin.
(if your arguing that the range is self thus it must target the point of origin, that is not from the above rule that "the target must be in range", but rather a specific rule from the self range which I will get to later. Besides BB very clearly has a 5 ft range built in there, and even if it didn't it has a specific statement that overrides the range anyways "one creature within 5 feet of you".)
Either way I've reread the rules and think I have a better understanding of the rules than I did when I wrote that. Let me go over what self spells are, which reminder are not a part of the AoE rules that everyone seems so keen to discuss right now. (source)
Booming Blade does not fall under the first category. As by absolutely nobody here's (i would hope anyways) definition of Booming Blade is the user the only person who takes damage, and Booming Blade states it can affect one creature with in 5 feet, which I wouldn't say counts as "only you"
The argument that Booming Blade isn't a cone or line of effect does exist, however I would say that is completely unintended. If you do want to go by absolute RAW, then Booming Blade wouldn't fall under either category and thus the range of the spell is invalid. If you go and remove the "cones or lines of effect" restriction (which seems to be RAI going by sage advice on BB & Warcaster), good on you problem solved (it's to be noted the cones or lines restriction is there because they are the only aoes that don't by default target the point of origin, because the devs at the time forgot to consider spells which ranges defined in feet).
If you don't, then it just falls under "Most spells have ranges expressed in feet" because nothing states that a self spell cannot be a range expressed in feet, and the range of BB is very clearly expressed in feet "Self (5 ft)". As such the above is invalid as it would be then governed by the same rules as Fire Bolt. Bit iffy I know, I'll come back to it later.
The actual rules definition of a point of origin, further supports this (source).
Let me repeat that, "Every area of effect has a point of origin", in other words, Booming Blade cannot have a point of origin as it is not a area of effect and there is no specific rule that states it has a point of origin. (I admit this messes up the RAI of BB having a point of origin that isn't targeted, but I'm sure JC has an answer to that)
This is why how points of origin and how they relate to BB is very foggy, why would you define if a point of origin is targeted by spells that don't have points of origins?
As Jounichi made me realize in Maximizing Booming Blade forum (idk if they meant to or not, that's up to them), BB's range being expressed in feet and not under any general self rules works fine, same with not having a point of origin, as both changes nothing. The spell range still states "Self (5 ft)", which means anyone within 5 feet is technically within range of the spell, and so are yourself (note, again the above targeting rules state that the target must be in range of the spell, not that everyone in range is the target). Thus it's functions the exact same a normal 5 feet except WoTC forcing the flavor of the spell coming from you into RAW.
Even if your a bit iffy on that (very understandable, I am a bit iffy about it to if I'm being honest), it doesn't matter anyway since BB's spell description explicitly states "one creature within 5 feet of you" which overrides the targeting rules anyways (as mentioned by the Spell Sniper + BB builds, may they rest in peace).
If you do argue that BB does have a point of origin, again, I've made the argument that if BB did have a point of origin it would still only target one person.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/tips-tactics/83675-maximizing-booming-blade-green-flame-blade-build?comment=31
Edit: I would advise Chicken_Champ to read the above forum post, because I made that in reply to someone who literally asked the exact same thing Chicken is asking rn about Fireball and Burning Hands, even the same spells no less. The short answer is that it's written down what AoEs target a point of origin and which ones don't in the spells chapter. Hint, both fireball and burning hands are accounted for in there.
Made this post in a rush so sorry if it's not the most eloquent or comes off as a little rude. If so then it's not intentional.
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.
I'm not in the mood for hints, or for page long posts that tell me to read another forum thread rather than answering the question themself:
The point of origin of a Fireball is the target of Fireball, not because of any specific language in Fireball, but as an example provided in Chapter 10 describing how range and targets generally function. Do you believe that the point of origin of a Burning Hands is not the target of Burning Hands? If not, why not, with what support?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.