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.
There's your answer Chicken_Champ
Edit: I guess I probably should of just answered it but I didn't want that post to be too long esp since it would just be me copy-pasting the above.
My thoughts on BB has changed since I made this post, see my previous post for that. The bit on Fireball & Burning Hands stays the same though.
I think in the reposting of this in this forum I cut out the links by accident, oops my bad.
Your answer is, that the point of origin of a Fireball is not its target, because Fireball doesn't say it is, and in fact says that the creatures in its blast are its targets?
Ok, thank you. You're wrong then, because Chapter 10 explicitly tells you that the target of Fireball is its point of origin.
For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts.
Because your analysis is contingent upon disregarding this language, it is incorrect. There is nothing about the spell description of Fireball which suggests its point of origin works any differently than any other area-of-effect point of origin. Chapter 10 says what it says about Fireball to illustrate a general rule for "spells like" Fireball (i.e., area of effect spells), that their point of origin is their target.
Ah. You still think I'm making a point about the spell -- I don't really care about Booming Blade. I'm mostly worried about the idea that you know exactly what a target of a spell is. As Chicken_Champ brought up, fireball is the example that the rules use to tell you that the target is the point of origin of the spell when the description itself tells you that the targets are the creatures or objects affected by the spell. My point is that you cannot tell me what a target is or isn't "according to the rules" if the rules themselves don't even know.
The rules do know what the target of the spell is. "The target of a spell must be within the spell's range." And in general, the use of the Fireball shows us that a point of origin is indeed a target, if that was unclear.
What we don't know is if other creatures that are effected by a spell are also always targets. Some spells, like Fireball explicitly call these secondary creatures "targets." Others, like Burning Hands, do not. The options are (1) any creature effected by a spell is a target of the spell, even if the spell doesn't explicitly call them that, or (2) a creature effected by a spell is target of the spell if its called a target, but is just a creature effected by a spell if it isn't specifically called a target, or (3) the "target" creatures in Fireball are targets of its spell effect but not targets of its spell, and we should further split hairs about whether we're being targeted by spells, spell effects, etc.. We can debate RAI on that all day long.
Either way, Booming Blade, like Fireball, is explicit that this secondary creature in the area of effect should be called a "target." That doesn't change the fact that Chapter 10 provides that "the target" is the point of origin, too. If you take option #3 above, you could argue that Booming Blade-the-spell only targets the point of origin (and its only its spell effect that targets an enemy), and thus is still eligible for Twinned Spell .... but I certainly don't think thats RAI for Booming Blade, even if it does make a lot of sense for other spells that look more like Magic Stone. I'd stick with option #1 or #2 for now.
But either way, Booming Blade targets the caster (as point of origin), and one enemy in its AOE (as effected creature). That's the RAWest of RAW.
Either way, Booming Blade, like Fireball, is explicit that this secondary creature in the area of effect should be called a "target." That doesn't change the fact that Chapter 10 provides that "the target" is the point of origin, too. If you take option #3 above, you could argue that Booming Blade-the-spell only targets the point of origin (and its only its spell effect that targets an enemy), and thus is still eligible for Twinned Spell .... but I certainly don't think thats RAI for Booming Blade, even if it does make a lot of sense for other spells that look more like Magic Stone. I'd stick with option #1 or #2 for now.
But either way, Booming Blade targets the caster (as point of origin), and one enemy in its AOE (as effected creature). That's the RAWest of RAW.
You keep assuming that the creature, yourself, is the only valid target of every Self-ranged spell. There is another possible target within that range - the point in space that yourself occupies.
All cone and line AOE spells with a range of self are specifically called out as not including the caster by default. A way to achieve that sensibly is to assume that the spell's first target is a point in space (just like most ranged AOE spells) and that this point in space is co-located with the caster, allowing the caster to be within or outside the resulting area at their leisure.
This is a perfectly valid way to interpret the rules for Self spells, and results in BB working with Warcaster because it targets first a point in space then a single creature - which is valid for an interpretation of "must target only that creature" that is concerned only with creatures.
You are free to continue with your interpretation which results in the caster being a target of a spell despite nothing calling them a target and them not being affected by it in any way, but I'm here to say that you do have another option - and it doesn't require you to argue with the SAC rulings.
I would prefer that too, believe me. Treating the caster's space as the point of origin, or the object flourished as the point of origin, would get around this spell targeting more than one creature. That might be a way to still have it be subject to Twinned Spell and Warcaster, if you read those to require only one creature be targeted, rather than only one target and that one target must be a creature.
But again, reading Chapter 10 closely is key.
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.
"You" are not your space, or your objects. "You" are a creature. Chapter 10 provides that range of self on AOE requires that you the caster (the creature, not the space or their equipment) are the point of origin.
The RAW in Chapter 10 allow no room for Burning Hands point of origin to be a point in the caster's space, rather than the caster.
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.
Now, I'll be the first person to say I disagree with some of his rulings. I still dislike how the Echo Knight's manifest echo allows for the echo to move in three dimensions; even if the knight can't. I think it's ridiculous, and I disallow it at my table, but RAW that's how it works.
Just like, RAW, booming blade works with War Caster.
The difference between us is I care enough to try and understand the design process. If something challenges my expectations, I ask why this doesn't meet my expectation. I don't lash out and repeat falsehoods. Crawford says they're compatible, so they're compatible.
They're compatible because booming blade meets all the criteria for the feat. The criteria for the feat are that, "the spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature." We know booming blade has a casting time of 1 action because that's self-evident. And we know the spell only targets one creature; which means the spellcaster isn't the target of the spell even if they might technically fall within its area of effect.
It's not that difficult. All you have to do is try.
Now, I'll be the first person to say I disagree with some of his rulings. I still dislike how the Echo Knight's manifest echo allows for the echo to move in three dimensions; even if the knight can't. I think it's ridiculous, and I disallow it at my table, but RAW that's how it works.
Just like, RAW, booming blade works with War Caster.
JC's tweets aren't RAW, which you should know. So, I guess you'll have to just keep linking to it quite a few more times, until the day comes where Wizards decides to issue an errata to Chapter 10 that reflects JC's opinions instead of what's published there right now, which describes the exact opposite. Until then, that tweet will remain just another great example of why JC is not a good source for rules, because what he's saying there is directly contradicted by the RAW language of the PHB. They blundered with the BB and GFB rewrite, and that tweet is him trying to do damage control to pretend that Warcaster still works, going so far as to make far-ranging proclamations about points of origin that are demonstrably wrong. Embarassing.
The difference between us is I care enough to try and understand the design process. If something challenges my expectations, I ask why this doesn't meet my expectation. I don't lash out and repeat falsehoods.... It's not that difficult. All you have to do is try.
We have different approaches to how we analyze the rules (I put all my weight on the language printed in the rule books; you put great weight in the expressed intentions and rulings of their lead designer). That's about all that needs to be said on the matter, I'm sure that neither of us is trying to lash out or repeat falsehoods, and I'm sure we're both "trying."
I would prefer that too, believe me. Treating the caster's space as the point of origin, or the object flourished as the point of origin, would get around this spell targeting more than one creature. That might be a way to still have it be subject to Twinned Spell and Warcaster, if you read those to require only one creature be targeted, rather than only one target and that one target must be a creature.
But again, reading Chapter 10 closely is key.
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.
"You" are not your space, or your objects. "You" are a creature. Chapter 10 provides that range of self on AOE requires that you the caster (the creature, not the space or their equipment) are the point of origin.
The RAW in Chapter 10 allow no room for Burning Hands point of origin to be a point in the caster's space, rather than the caster.
I've actually read the same words as you, as carefully, and have reached my current view. The rules do not say anywhere that the creature known as yourself is and always must be "the target" or "a target" of every spell with a range of Self. That is an inference that you are making. You can make that inference if you choose, but it puts you in disagreement with the statement by the designers that BB unequivocally works with Warcaster (it currently doesn't work with Twinned because its range is Self, not because of the number of targeted creatures).
To be honest, I'm not trying to convince you, but to anyone else who is reading this: please be reassured that the rules can actually make sense and that things are fine. BB works with Warcaster. BB doesn't work with Twinned Spell. "Target" simultaneously means both "the thing within range that is chosen as the location of the spell taking effect" and "a creature or object that is affected by the spell in any way" - and that is okay.
Setting the "argument from authority" fallacy aside, there is literally no better place to get any meaning from than the lead designer. So if your position is its really unknowable because how can the people who wrote the rules possibly know what the rules are, I'm going to borrow a quote from Obi-Wan Kenobi.
"Well, then you are lost!"
But, in all seriousness, all you have to do is look at the spell description. That'll tell you what is an isn't a target. If it is, it'll be expressly called a target. And if it's silent on something, then it's not a target. You don't just get to make up primary and secondary targets and call all of that RAW. I know it's hard to believe, but something can serve as a point of origin without being a target.
And, really, we know the spellcaster isn't a target when they cast booming blade. They're just the point of origin. You, in your foolishness, repeatedly conflate two things together when you really shouldn't be.
I've actually read the same words as you, as carefully, and have reached my current view. The rules do not say anywhere that the creature known as yourself is and always must be "the target" or "a target" of every spell with a range of Self. That is an inference that you are making. You can make that inference if you choose, but it puts you in disagreement with the statement by the designers that BB unequivocally works with Warcaster (it currently doesn't work with Twinned because its range is Self, not because of the number of targeted creatures).
You're moving goal posts.
You said, the caster doesn't need to be the point of origin for a "Self (X-foot Shape)" AOE, but rather, that point of origin can be a "point in space" that's co-located with the caster.
A way to achieve that sensibly is to assume that the spell's first target is a point in space (just like most ranged AOE spells) and that this point in space is co-located with the caster, allowing the caster to be within or outside the resulting area at their leisure
I've quoted the sentence of Chapter 10 that shows that the point of origin cannot be a point in space co-located with the caster; it is instead "you." "You" are not a "point in space."
Now, that establishes conclusively that "you" (the caster, a creature) are the point of origin. We can continue to debate whether a point of origin must be a target. I have laid out my explanation of why the example that Chapter 10 gives of Fireball's point of origin being its target stands for the premise that all points of origin are targets. You are welcome to disagree with that... but a good start would be describing to me why Fireball's is and Burning Hands (or Booming Blade) is not.
I think I am hearing that the fact that a caster can both be the point of origin but also choose to not count themselves as included within the area of effect, that you're extending that to say something about targets. I don't really follow that reasoning, or see the connection.
Nobody reading this, or any other thread, should be reassured by anyone's opinion or analysis to the extent that they stop reading the rules as written for themselves, trusting that things "make sense" or "are fine." You, me, or Jeremy Crawford, none of us have the power to change what's written in the actual rule books to match our opinions, only draw people's attention to what parts of it we think are persuasive or relevant. Those rule books contain objectively-knowable rules, RAW, that does not come down to mere differences of opinion. Warcaster not working on a spell that targets (more than one creature? has more targets than one creature?) is one of those rules. Booming Blade having a range of "Self" but also targeting an enemy that is within a 5-foot radius, that's another objective truth. Range self spells with AOE's using the caster (not a point in space) as their point of origin, that's objectively the RAW rule. Points of origin being considered targets... that's VERY STRONGLY IMPLIED, because othewise Chapter 10 would have no reason to say what it says about Fireball, other than to illustrate such a rule.
Combining those three 100% RAW rules, plus that one debatable RAW rule, leads to the conclusion that BB is not eligible for Warcaster. If you disagree, the only real room for that disagreement is in the "points of origin are targets" step. To disagree with me there, I've repeatedly asked for a good reason why Fireball can be read as being in any way unique in that respect, and if it is unique, why Chapter 10 would have highlighed it in that section. I haven't heard a good response yet; so far, the only response I've gotten to that question is something about the target of Fireballnot being its point of origin, which is objectively and provably untrue.
Quit talking about Crawford, and answer me head on: if the point of origin of Fireball is its target, and if Chapter 10 highlighted that to demonstrate a point about all "spells like" Fireball, why should we NOT read the point of origin of Burning Hands or Booming Blade to be their target? Not just WHY, but also please QUOTE the rule text that supports your reasoning. I already well understand that we have different opinions; what I fail to grasp, is what textual support you find for yours.
But, in all seriousness, all you have to do is look at the spell description. That'll tell you what is an isn't a target. If it is, it'll be expressly called a target. And if it's silent on something, then it's not a target. You don't just get to make up primary and secondary targets and call all of that RAW. I know it's hard to believe, but something can serve as a point of origin without being a target.
Okay, but you're wrong about that.
For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts.
But
A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
The target of Fireballis the point of origin, that is RAW and un-debatable. But, there is no mention of that point of origin being a target in the spell description of Fireball, and in fact, it calls the creatures it effects in its AOE (who may well be outside the 150 foot range) "target"s. Therefor, your statement that "f it is, it'll be expressly called a target. And if it's silent on something, then it's not a target." is objectively and provably false.
This isn't a mere difference of opinion or argument from authority fallacy. Your position requires Chapter 10 to be incorrect about the target of Fireball. That is not how RAW works.
I've actually read the same words as you, as carefully, and have reached my current view. The rules do not say anywhere that the creature known as yourself is and always must be "the target" or "a target" of every spell with a range of Self. That is an inference that you are making. You can make that inference if you choose, but it puts you in disagreement with the statement by the designers that BB unequivocally works with Warcaster (it currently doesn't work with Twinned because its range is Self, not because of the number of targeted creatures).
You're moving goal posts.
You said, the caster doesn't need to be the point of origin for a "Self (X-foot Shape)" AOE, but rather, that point of origin can be a "point in space" that's co-located with the caster.
A way to achieve that sensibly is to assume that the spell's first target is a point in space (just like most ranged AOE spells) and that this point in space is co-located with the caster, allowing the caster to be within or outside the resulting area at their leisure
I've quoted the sentence of Chapter 10 that shows that the point of origin cannot be a point in space co-located with the caster; it is instead "you." "You" are not a "point in space."
Now, that establishes conclusively that "you" (the caster, a creature) are the point of origin. We can continue to debate whether a point of origin must be a target. I have laid out my explanation of why the example that Chapter 10 gives of Fireball's point of origin being its target stands for the premise that all points of origin are targets. You are welcome to disagree with that... but a good start would be describing to me why Fireball's is and Burning Hands (or Booming Blade) is not.
I think I am hearing that the fact that a caster can both be the point of origin but also choose to not count themselves as included within the area of effect, that you're extending that to say something about targets. I don't really follow that reasoning, or see the connection.
Nobody reading this, or any other thread, should be reassured by anyone's opinion or analysis to the extent that they stop reading the rules as written for themselves, trusting that things "make sense" or "are fine." You, me, or Jeremy Crawford, none of us have the power to change what's written in the actual rule books to match our opinions, only draw people's attention to what parts of it we think are persuasive or relevant. Those rule books contain objectively-knowable rules, RAW, that does not come down to mere differences of opinion. Warcaster not working on a spell that targets (more than one creature? has more targets than one creature?) is one of those rules. Booming Blade having a range of "Self" but also targeting an enemy that is within a 5-foot radius, that's another objective truth. Range self spells with AOE's using the caster (not a point in space) as their point of origin, that's objectively the RAW rule. Points of origin being considered targets... that's VERY STRONGLY IMPLIED, because othewise Chapter 10 would have no reason to say what it says about Fireball, other than to illustrate such a rule.
Combining those three 100% RAW rules, plus that one debatable RAW rule, leads to the conclusion that BB is not eligible for Warcaster. If you disagree, the only real room for that disagreement is in the "points of origin are targets" step. To disagree with me there, I've repeatedly asked for a good reason why Fireball can be read as being in any way unique in that respect, and if it is unique, why Chapter 10 would have highlighed it in that section. I haven't heard a good response yet; so far, the only response I've gotten to that question is something about the target of Fireballnot being its point of origin, which is objectively and provably untrue.
Quit talking about Crawford, and answer me head on: if the point of origin of Fireball is its target, and if Chapter 10 highlighted that to demonstrate a point about all "spells like" Fireball, why should we NOT read the point of origin of Burning Hands or Booming Blade to be their target? Not just WHY, but also please QUOTE the rule text that supports your reasoning. I already well understand that we have different opinions; what I fail to grasp, is what textual support you find for yours.
I've read that sentence you quoted about a point of origin, and it doesn't say the thing you say it says. It says what it says. It does not say that the caster is the/a target of a self-range spell. It just doesn't say that. You infer that. It is a valid inference, but not the only valid inference.
I cannot argue your follow up points because we disagree on the fundamentals. I believe that a self-ranged spell which does not affect the caster in fact takes the point in space of the caster as its first target, and you have quoted what you believe disapproves that and I claim that the words you quote do not disprove that.
The chosen targeting point of a spell, that thing which is within range, is a target of the spell. It is often the only target of the spell. It can be a creature, object or point in space.
Also there are other creatures and objects and areas of space that are affected by a spell or its effects. Within many areas of the rules these are also called targets of a spell.
With this as my basis, I am able to understand an interpretation of the rules that agrees with all RAW, and at the same time agrees with the guidance provided by JC that BB works with Warcaster.
To answer your final question: the point of origin of Fireball is a target. So are all the creatures hit by it. The point of origin of Burning Hands can also be a target (though not in any way that matters) and that target point is the point in space occupied by the caster. All creatures affected are also targets. My textual support is the same text you are reading in chapter 10 - interpreted in a way that makes consistent sense. I understand your interpretation perfectly, but I don't agree with it. No one else here needs to agree with it either.
I'm really sorry reading comprehension is so hard for some people, but this thread has veered wildly off topic. If you want to discuss anything other than booming blade, take it elsewhere.
You're kind of conflating two points I've been making, so let me try to make it more clear which one (or both) that you disagree with:
the point of origin of a Self (5 foot radius) spell is the caster themself
points of origin are targets.
#1 is pretty much a direct quote (or paraphrase) of Chapter 10, it isn't really up for debate.... unless "you" can mean "a point in space" rather than the caster themself. That would be... unusual, and I would want to see some textual support for using "you" that way, because that's definitely NOT plain language English. "You" cast a spell. "You" take damage. "You" maintain concentration. Those are all things that "you" do as a creature/caster, that a space cannot.
Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell's effect must be you (see “Areas of Effect” later in the this chapter).
I'm really quite surprised that #1 seems to be the sticking point for you, but that you're otherwise okay with #2. #2 is the real inference here, based on reading this sentence as providing a broad general rule about points of origin:
For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts.
It sounds like you agree that the point of origin of AOE spells is a "target (though not in any way that matters)". You just... somehow disagree that when we talk about "you" being a point of origin, that "you" are a creature, and not a point in space that overlaps with your character.
Is that correct? I understand that we won't agree with each other (and nobody reading needs to agree with either of us either), but I'm hoping we can leave clear explanations for our positions. I think I've done that so far.
The reason why fireball has its point of origin serve as a target is because the effect is centered on, "a point you choose within range." This is the definition of a target: a person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack. The spell description also happens to use the term "target" in a more colloquial sense when referring to creatures within the area of effect. This is done to set a precedent, and it's not contradictory. Both the point of origin and those within the area of effect can be considered targets.
However, this does not mean the point of origin is always a target. Again, you turn to the spell description, which is what the rules tell you to do. And when the spellcaster serves as the point of origin, they aren't choosing themself as a target because they can't make that choice.
You can aim a fireball or lightning bolt. But with the former, you get to choose (target) its point of origin. With the latter, you can only choose its direction.
You're kind of conflating two points I've been making, so let me try to make it more clear which one (or both) that you disagree with:
the point of origin of a Self (5 foot radius) spell is the caster themself
points of origin are targets.
#1 is pretty much a direct quote (or paraphrase) of Chapter 10, it isn't really up for debate.... unless "you" can mean "a point in space" rather than the caster themself. That would be... unusual, and I would want to see some textual support for using "you" that way, because that's definitely NOT plain language English. "You" cast a spell. "You" take damage. "You" maintain concentration. Those are all things that "you" do as a creature/caster, that a space cannot.
Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell's effect must be you (see “Areas of Effect” later in the this chapter).
I'm really quite surprised that #1 seems to be the sticking point for you, but that you're otherwise okay with #2. #2 is the real inference here, based on reading this sentence as providing a broad general rule about points of origin:
For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts.
It sounds like you agree that the point of origin of AOE spells is a "target (though not in any way that matters)". You just... somehow disagree that when we talk about "you" being a point of origin, that "you" are a creature, and not a point in space that overlaps with your character.
Is that correct? I understand that we won't agree with each other (and nobody reading needs to agree with either of us either), but I'm hoping we can leave clear explanations for our positions. I think I've done that so far.
You are accurate in the distillation of our disagreement, and your disagreement with sage advice. I disagree lightly with both statements.
1. The point of origin of a Self-range effect is a point in space within that area of space that the entity known as you covers. You are a creature, not a point. You cannot be a point.
2. The rules do not state that being a point of origin, (or being a creature located at a point of origin) makes someone a target, so saying that a spell effect "originates from you" does not make "you" a target except by an inference that is not strictly required.
I understand that you want to take the rule book wordings as gospel truth and apply only strict logical interpretation and interpolation to their meaning (like how you don't believe in the existence of flavor text in spell descriptions), but that is not how most people read these rules, nor how they were actually written (by their own admission). Some lines, taken on their own, do not and cannot be read as a restrictive rule. For example in the range section "the target of a spell must be within the spell's range", but later in the targets section it says that targets are one or more things affected by the spell - some of which could easily enough be outside the nominated range of the spell via any spell effect stretching beyond it. So the "within range" sentence cannot be always true because the meaning of target has changed between the two sections. It is true in a much as it helps you to target your spells within range, but has no greater meaning.
Its sad that the rules were not written in strict, unambiguous, logical code - as then these discussions would all be much easier. Sometimes the rules use code words with strict clear definitions (like the Attack Action), but usually they doesn't (like the word "target").
So, looking at all the assembled rules from chapter 10, my answer to the question "is the caster a target of Booming Blade?" is no. JC's answer is also no. Your answer is not no. Here we are.
1. The point of origin of a Self-range effect is a point in space within that area of space that the entity known as you covers. You are a creature, not a point. You cannot be a point.
Its sad that the rules were not written in strict, unambiguous, logical code - as then these discussions would all be much easier. Sometimes the rules use code words with strict clear definitions (like the Attack Action), but usually they doesn't (like the word "target").
Now that, at least, is something I definitely agree on.
The reason why fireball has its point of origin serve as a target is because the effect is centered on, "a point you choose within range." This is the definition of a target: a person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack. The spell description also happens to use the term "target" in a more colloquial sense when referring to creatures within the area of effect. This is done to set a precedent, and it's not contradictory. Both the point of origin and those within the area of effect can be considered targets.
However, this does not mean the point of origin is always a target. Again, you turn to the spell description, which is what the rules tell you to do. And when the spellcaster serves as the point of origin, they aren't choosing themself as a target because they can't make that choice.
You can aim a fireball or lightning bolt. But with the former, you get to choose (target) its point of origin. With the latter, you can only choose its direction.
If your argument is that "a thing is not a target unless it is chosen by the caster from more than one possible targets," then I'd disagree strongly, and ask where you find that in the rules. That would lead to Shield, for example, having no target, since it can only be cast on yourself. If your argument is not that broad, but is instead specifically that only "a point of origin is not a target unless it is chosen by the caster from more than one possible points of origin," then I'd disagree if anything even more strenuously, because not only is there no support for the rule in general in the PHB, there's also no support for treating point-of-origin-targets substantially different from creature-targets.
I think our positions have been made clear enough, and that if you were going to quote some new PHB language you would have done so by now. I'll duck back out of this thread for another 6 months now and see what shakes loose in 2022. :p
So as many of you may have heard, Booming Blade will be getting errata'd in Tasha's to provide a range of "Self" instead of "5 feet." The consequences of this include:
Will no longer be eligible for Distant Spell from Sorcerer or Spell Sniper feat, which werenecessary to enable it for Reach weapon attacks (but possibly won't be going forward, depending on how the spell description reads).
Will no longer be eligible for Twinned Spell from Sorcerer, which had allowed two attacks to be made with one action.
Will maybe no longer be eligible for Warcaster feat, depending on how you understand the word "target" in 5E (general consensus is that a spell with range of self must have a target of self, per Chapter 10)
But now will be eligible for extending to your Find Steed mount, meaning a mounted Paladin makes two attacks (one for themself, one for their steed) when casting.
But now will be eligible for extending to your Beast Master Animal Companion via Share Spells, meaning a Ranger within 30 feet makes two attacks when casting.
It's odd to me that Booming Blade is getting singled out with the apparent attempt to nerf it out of the Reach-using Eldritch Knight's toolkit, and taking it off the menu for Warcaster opportunity attacks (which really seem like the main context that the spell was originally designed for), but while also adding it to other toolkits that it wasn't part of before. Even odder that (it sounds like) this is only happening to BB, and not also to Green-Flame Blade?
What are your thoughts? Any other interactions that I'm overlooking? Does this strike you as a good, or even justifiable, errata?
So, let's take these one at a time:
This is technically correct. Per the section on range, spells which have their range expressed as "Self (XYZ)" also have a range of "Self." Because the spell's range is "Self," and not at least "Touch" or "5 feet," it cannot have its range extended by Distant Spell. But Spell Sniper is a little more tricky. Technically, the spell's effective range could be extended to "Self (10-ft radius)," but the spell description says the melee weapon attack needed to trigger the spell's effect must be made against a target within 5 feet of the spellcaster. This is another one of those odd interactions between a spell and a feat that, on its surface, appears to be broken. (Just take a look at mage hand and telekinetic.) But what is RAW and what is RAI aren't clear, and no guidance has been given one way or the other. A permissive DM might bend the rules by saying the radius can be extended. But they're not wrong for disallowing the interaction, since "Self" cannot be doubled, and Adventurer's League would almost certainly disallow it.
Again, this is technically correct, but Chicken_Champ made the mistake of not giving us a rationale. Twinned Spell expressly precludes spells with a range of Self from being affeced by it. And, as established in the previous answer, "Self (XYZ)" is still considered "Self." This is the only discernable point of failure for the interaction.
I don't know where this general consensus on spell targets comes from, but, per both Rules Designer Jeremy Crawford and a thoughtful analysis by ThinkDM, the War Caster feat still works with booming blade. In fact, it can also work with green-flame blade. In any case, what is popular isn't always right, and what is right isn't always popular. Disagree with Crawford all you want, but what we do have is developer insight and confirmation that, while "Self (XYZ)" might also mean "Self" for the purposes of determining a spell's range, it does not mean the spellcaster serving as a spell's point of origin is also a target of that spell. Many areas of effect allow the spellcaster to be affected by the spell, and thus serve as a potential target, but they are not required to be.
This is flat out wrong, and I cannot for the life of me figure out how they arrived at this idea. The spell find steed requires any such spell to target only the spellcaster; be they paladin or a bard with Magical Secrets. Not only does booming blade not target the spellcaster, but it expressly has another targe: the target of the melee weapon attack.
This is also wrong. While the Beast Master'sShare Spells feature works a little differently, it still requires the spell to target the ranger. And since the spell does not target the ranger, it cannot be shared with their companion.
Metamagic can tricky, and I don't blame anyone for getting a little confused. But something we all have to remember is the rules are written in natural language. They're meant to be simple and easy to understand. It's what makes this edition of the game so accessible. Once upon a time, this was the rules on grappling. Printed in the 3.5 Player's Handbook, it was almost two full pages worth of text; not including feats and rules from other chapters and sections of the book that would modify your rolls and other interactions. Now it's just this.
Grappling
When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.
The target of your grapple must be no more than one size larger than you and must be within your reach. Using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target by making a grapple check instead of an attack roll: a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). You succeed automatically if the target is incapacitated. If you succeed, you subject the target to the grappled condition. The condition specifies the things that end it, and you can release the target whenever you like (no action required).
Escaping a Grapple. A grappled creature can use its action to escape. To do so, it must succeed on a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check contested by your Strength (Athletics) check.
Moving a Grappled Creature. When you move, you can drag or carry the grappled creature with you, but your speed is halved, unless the creature is two or more sizes smaller than you.
We do not need precise, razor-sharp language to define everything for us.
You can disagree with the assessments I gave above. Or not, I don't really care. I don't play at your table, so it's no skin off my back. All I ask is everyone here be honest in what they say and do, and that you all remain cognizant of how your altering the rules will impact other elements of your game. This is why I care so much what the designers, including Crawford, say; even if it's not published in an "official" Sage Advice document. (Which is, in case anyone has forgotten, merely advice. We're all free to ignore it and do whatever we want.) Dungeon Masters are also designers. If you publish anything on DM's Guild, you're a designer. If you publish homebrew on this website, you're a designer.
And maybe I'm in the minority, but I think it's important to want to understand that process.
And, yes, not everyone who is a professional in their field knows what they're talking about. There are no shortage of incompetent lawyers on Twitter or YouTube, going off about subjects they're objectively wrong about. Or even laypeople who constantly think they know more than they actually do because they can't come to grips with their own inadequacies, even if that just means they're not an expert in everything.
And, yes, Asimov did lose an argument with a Columbia professor over the literary interpretation of one of his novels. Or, at least, that's how the anecdote goes. But none of us are that professor, and we're not artistic interpretations. We're debating rules, and, like it or not, we have the word of perhaps the single best-qualified person in the world to consult on those rules. Because everything goes past him. We shouldn't be so eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater because it's inconvenient.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There's your answer Chicken_Champ
Edit: I guess I probably should of just answered it but I didn't want that post to be too long esp since it would just be me copy-pasting the above.
My thoughts on BB has changed since I made this post, see my previous post for that. The bit on Fireball & Burning Hands stays the same though.
I think in the reposting of this in this forum I cut out the links by accident, oops my bad.
Here they are: Fireball, Burning Hands, Sphere, Cone
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.
Your answer is, that the point of origin of a Fireball is not its target, because Fireball doesn't say it is, and in fact says that the creatures in its blast are its targets?
Ok, thank you. You're wrong then, because Chapter 10 explicitly tells you that the target of Fireball is its point of origin.
Because your analysis is contingent upon disregarding this language, it is incorrect. There is nothing about the spell description of Fireball which suggests its point of origin works any differently than any other area-of-effect point of origin. Chapter 10 says what it says about Fireball to illustrate a general rule for "spells like" Fireball (i.e., area of effect spells), that their point of origin is their target.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Ah. You still think I'm making a point about the spell -- I don't really care about Booming Blade. I'm mostly worried about the idea that you know exactly what a target of a spell is. As Chicken_Champ brought up, fireball is the example that the rules use to tell you that the target is the point of origin of the spell when the description itself tells you that the targets are the creatures or objects affected by the spell. My point is that you cannot tell me what a target is or isn't "according to the rules" if the rules themselves don't even know.
The rules do know what the target of the spell is. "The target of a spell must be within the spell's range." And in general, the use of the Fireball shows us that a point of origin is indeed a target, if that was unclear.
What we don't know is if other creatures that are effected by a spell are also always targets. Some spells, like Fireball explicitly call these secondary creatures "targets." Others, like Burning Hands, do not. The options are (1) any creature effected by a spell is a target of the spell, even if the spell doesn't explicitly call them that, or (2) a creature effected by a spell is target of the spell if its called a target, but is just a creature effected by a spell if it isn't specifically called a target, or (3) the "target" creatures in Fireball are targets of its spell effect but not targets of its spell, and we should further split hairs about whether we're being targeted by spells, spell effects, etc.. We can debate RAI on that all day long.
Either way, Booming Blade, like Fireball, is explicit that this secondary creature in the area of effect should be called a "target." That doesn't change the fact that Chapter 10 provides that "the target" is the point of origin, too. If you take option #3 above, you could argue that Booming Blade-the-spell only targets the point of origin (and its only its spell effect that targets an enemy), and thus is still eligible for Twinned Spell .... but I certainly don't think thats RAI for Booming Blade, even if it does make a lot of sense for other spells that look more like Magic Stone. I'd stick with option #1 or #2 for now.
But either way, Booming Blade targets the caster (as point of origin), and one enemy in its AOE (as effected creature). That's the RAWest of RAW.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You keep assuming that the creature, yourself, is the only valid target of every Self-ranged spell. There is another possible target within that range - the point in space that yourself occupies.
All cone and line AOE spells with a range of self are specifically called out as not including the caster by default. A way to achieve that sensibly is to assume that the spell's first target is a point in space (just like most ranged AOE spells) and that this point in space is co-located with the caster, allowing the caster to be within or outside the resulting area at their leisure.
This is a perfectly valid way to interpret the rules for Self spells, and results in BB working with Warcaster because it targets first a point in space then a single creature - which is valid for an interpretation of "must target only that creature" that is concerned only with creatures.
You are free to continue with your interpretation which results in the caster being a target of a spell despite nothing calling them a target and them not being affected by it in any way, but I'm here to say that you do have another option - and it doesn't require you to argue with the SAC rulings.
I would prefer that too, believe me. Treating the caster's space as the point of origin, or the object flourished as the point of origin, would get around this spell targeting more than one creature. That might be a way to still have it be subject to Twinned Spell and Warcaster, if you read those to require only one creature be targeted, rather than only one target and that one target must be a creature.
But again, reading Chapter 10 closely is key.
"You" are not your space, or your objects. "You" are a creature. Chapter 10 provides that range of self on AOE requires that you the caster (the creature, not the space or their equipment) are the point of origin.
The RAW in Chapter 10 allow no room for Burning Hands point of origin to be a point in the caster's space, rather than the caster.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Except that booming blade does still work with War Caster because Crawford has said so. Honestly, how many times do I have to link to this?
Now, I'll be the first person to say I disagree with some of his rulings. I still dislike how the Echo Knight's manifest echo allows for the echo to move in three dimensions; even if the knight can't. I think it's ridiculous, and I disallow it at my table, but RAW that's how it works.
Just like, RAW, booming blade works with War Caster.
The difference between us is I care enough to try and understand the design process. If something challenges my expectations, I ask why this doesn't meet my expectation. I don't lash out and repeat falsehoods. Crawford says they're compatible, so they're compatible.
They're compatible because booming blade meets all the criteria for the feat. The criteria for the feat are that, "the spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature." We know booming blade has a casting time of 1 action because that's self-evident. And we know the spell only targets one creature; which means the spellcaster isn't the target of the spell even if they might technically fall within its area of effect.
It's not that difficult. All you have to do is try.
JC's tweets aren't RAW, which you should know. So, I guess you'll have to just keep linking to it quite a few more times, until the day comes where Wizards decides to issue an errata to Chapter 10 that reflects JC's opinions instead of what's published there right now, which describes the exact opposite. Until then, that tweet will remain just another great example of why JC is not a good source for rules, because what he's saying there is directly contradicted by the RAW language of the PHB. They blundered with the BB and GFB rewrite, and that tweet is him trying to do damage control to pretend that Warcaster still works, going so far as to make far-ranging proclamations about points of origin that are demonstrably wrong. Embarassing.
We have different approaches to how we analyze the rules (I put all my weight on the language printed in the rule books; you put great weight in the expressed intentions and rulings of their lead designer). That's about all that needs to be said on the matter, I'm sure that neither of us is trying to lash out or repeat falsehoods, and I'm sure we're both "trying."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I've actually read the same words as you, as carefully, and have reached my current view. The rules do not say anywhere that the creature known as yourself is and always must be "the target" or "a target" of every spell with a range of Self. That is an inference that you are making. You can make that inference if you choose, but it puts you in disagreement with the statement by the designers that BB unequivocally works with Warcaster (it currently doesn't work with Twinned because its range is Self, not because of the number of targeted creatures).
To be honest, I'm not trying to convince you, but to anyone else who is reading this: please be reassured that the rules can actually make sense and that things are fine. BB works with Warcaster. BB doesn't work with Twinned Spell. "Target" simultaneously means both "the thing within range that is chosen as the location of the spell taking effect" and "a creature or object that is affected by the spell in any way" - and that is okay.
Really, dude?
Setting the "argument from authority" fallacy aside, there is literally no better place to get any meaning from than the lead designer. So if your position is its really unknowable because how can the people who wrote the rules possibly know what the rules are, I'm going to borrow a quote from Obi-Wan Kenobi.
"Well, then you are lost!"
But, in all seriousness, all you have to do is look at the spell description. That'll tell you what is an isn't a target. If it is, it'll be expressly called a target. And if it's silent on something, then it's not a target. You don't just get to make up primary and secondary targets and call all of that RAW. I know it's hard to believe, but something can serve as a point of origin without being a target.
And, really, we know the spellcaster isn't a target when they cast booming blade. They're just the point of origin. You, in your foolishness, repeatedly conflate two things together when you really shouldn't be.
You're moving goal posts.
You said, the caster doesn't need to be the point of origin for a "Self (X-foot Shape)" AOE, but rather, that point of origin can be a "point in space" that's co-located with the caster.
I've quoted the sentence of Chapter 10 that shows that the point of origin cannot be a point in space co-located with the caster; it is instead "you." "You" are not a "point in space."
Now, that establishes conclusively that "you" (the caster, a creature) are the point of origin. We can continue to debate whether a point of origin must be a target. I have laid out my explanation of why the example that Chapter 10 gives of Fireball's point of origin being its target stands for the premise that all points of origin are targets. You are welcome to disagree with that... but a good start would be describing to me why Fireball's is and Burning Hands (or Booming Blade) is not.
I think I am hearing that the fact that a caster can both be the point of origin but also choose to not count themselves as included within the area of effect, that you're extending that to say something about targets. I don't really follow that reasoning, or see the connection.
Nobody reading this, or any other thread, should be reassured by anyone's opinion or analysis to the extent that they stop reading the rules as written for themselves, trusting that things "make sense" or "are fine." You, me, or Jeremy Crawford, none of us have the power to change what's written in the actual rule books to match our opinions, only draw people's attention to what parts of it we think are persuasive or relevant. Those rule books contain objectively-knowable rules, RAW, that does not come down to mere differences of opinion. Warcaster not working on a spell that targets (more than one creature? has more targets than one creature?) is one of those rules. Booming Blade having a range of "Self" but also targeting an enemy that is within a 5-foot radius, that's another objective truth. Range self spells with AOE's using the caster (not a point in space) as their point of origin, that's objectively the RAW rule. Points of origin being considered targets... that's VERY STRONGLY IMPLIED, because othewise Chapter 10 would have no reason to say what it says about Fireball, other than to illustrate such a rule.
Combining those three 100% RAW rules, plus that one debatable RAW rule, leads to the conclusion that BB is not eligible for Warcaster. If you disagree, the only real room for that disagreement is in the "points of origin are targets" step. To disagree with me there, I've repeatedly asked for a good reason why Fireball can be read as being in any way unique in that respect, and if it is unique, why Chapter 10 would have highlighed it in that section. I haven't heard a good response yet; so far, the only response I've gotten to that question is something about the target of Fireball not being its point of origin, which is objectively and provably untrue.
Quit talking about Crawford, and answer me head on: if the point of origin of Fireball is its target, and if Chapter 10 highlighted that to demonstrate a point about all "spells like" Fireball, why should we NOT read the point of origin of Burning Hands or Booming Blade to be their target? Not just WHY, but also please QUOTE the rule text that supports your reasoning. I already well understand that we have different opinions; what I fail to grasp, is what textual support you find for yours.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Okay, but you're wrong about that.
But
The target of Fireball is the point of origin, that is RAW and un-debatable. But, there is no mention of that point of origin being a target in the spell description of Fireball, and in fact, it calls the creatures it effects in its AOE (who may well be outside the 150 foot range) "target"s. Therefor, your statement that "f it is, it'll be expressly called a target. And if it's silent on something, then it's not a target." is objectively and provably false.
This isn't a mere difference of opinion or argument from authority fallacy. Your position requires Chapter 10 to be incorrect about the target of Fireball. That is not how RAW works.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I've read that sentence you quoted about a point of origin, and it doesn't say the thing you say it says. It says what it says. It does not say that the caster is the/a target of a self-range spell. It just doesn't say that. You infer that. It is a valid inference, but not the only valid inference.
I cannot argue your follow up points because we disagree on the fundamentals. I believe that a self-ranged spell which does not affect the caster in fact takes the point in space of the caster as its first target, and you have quoted what you believe disapproves that and I claim that the words you quote do not disprove that.
The chosen targeting point of a spell, that thing which is within range, is a target of the spell. It is often the only target of the spell. It can be a creature, object or point in space.
Also there are other creatures and objects and areas of space that are affected by a spell or its effects. Within many areas of the rules these are also called targets of a spell.
With this as my basis, I am able to understand an interpretation of the rules that agrees with all RAW, and at the same time agrees with the guidance provided by JC that BB works with Warcaster.
To answer your final question: the point of origin of Fireball is a target. So are all the creatures hit by it. The point of origin of Burning Hands can also be a target (though not in any way that matters) and that target point is the point in space occupied by the caster. All creatures affected are also targets. My textual support is the same text you are reading in chapter 10 - interpreted in a way that makes consistent sense. I understand your interpretation perfectly, but I don't agree with it. No one else here needs to agree with it either.
I'm really sorry reading comprehension is so hard for some people, but this thread has veered wildly off topic. If you want to discuss anything other than booming blade, take it elsewhere.
You're kind of conflating two points I've been making, so let me try to make it more clear which one (or both) that you disagree with:
#1 is pretty much a direct quote (or paraphrase) of Chapter 10, it isn't really up for debate.... unless "you" can mean "a point in space" rather than the caster themself. That would be... unusual, and I would want to see some textual support for using "you" that way, because that's definitely NOT plain language English. "You" cast a spell. "You" take damage. "You" maintain concentration. Those are all things that "you" do as a creature/caster, that a space cannot.
I'm really quite surprised that #1 seems to be the sticking point for you, but that you're otherwise okay with #2. #2 is the real inference here, based on reading this sentence as providing a broad general rule about points of origin:
It sounds like you agree that the point of origin of AOE spells is a "target (though not in any way that matters)". You just... somehow disagree that when we talk about "you" being a point of origin, that "you" are a creature, and not a point in space that overlaps with your character.
Is that correct? I understand that we won't agree with each other (and nobody reading needs to agree with either of us either), but I'm hoping we can leave clear explanations for our positions. I think I've done that so far.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Oh, for crying out loud.
The reason why fireball has its point of origin serve as a target is because the effect is centered on, "a point you choose within range." This is the definition of a target: a person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack. The spell description also happens to use the term "target" in a more colloquial sense when referring to creatures within the area of effect. This is done to set a precedent, and it's not contradictory. Both the point of origin and those within the area of effect can be considered targets.
However, this does not mean the point of origin is always a target. Again, you turn to the spell description, which is what the rules tell you to do. And when the spellcaster serves as the point of origin, they aren't choosing themself as a target because they can't make that choice.
You can aim a fireball or lightning bolt. But with the former, you get to choose (target) its point of origin. With the latter, you can only choose its direction.
You are accurate in the distillation of our disagreement, and your disagreement with sage advice. I disagree lightly with both statements.
1. The point of origin of a Self-range effect is a point in space within that area of space that the entity known as you covers. You are a creature, not a point. You cannot be a point.
2. The rules do not state that being a point of origin, (or being a creature located at a point of origin) makes someone a target, so saying that a spell effect "originates from you" does not make "you" a target except by an inference that is not strictly required.
I understand that you want to take the rule book wordings as gospel truth and apply only strict logical interpretation and interpolation to their meaning (like how you don't believe in the existence of flavor text in spell descriptions), but that is not how most people read these rules, nor how they were actually written (by their own admission). Some lines, taken on their own, do not and cannot be read as a restrictive rule. For example in the range section "the target of a spell must be within the spell's range", but later in the targets section it says that targets are one or more things affected by the spell - some of which could easily enough be outside the nominated range of the spell via any spell effect stretching beyond it. So the "within range" sentence cannot be always true because the meaning of target has changed between the two sections. It is true in a much as it helps you to target your spells within range, but has no greater meaning.
Its sad that the rules were not written in strict, unambiguous, logical code - as then these discussions would all be much easier. Sometimes the rules use code words with strict clear definitions (like the Attack Action), but usually they doesn't (like the word "target").
So, looking at all the assembled rules from chapter 10, my answer to the question "is the caster a target of Booming Blade?" is no. JC's answer is also no. Your answer is not no. Here we are.
Now that, at least, is something I definitely agree on.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
If your argument is that "a thing is not a target unless it is chosen by the caster from more than one possible targets," then I'd disagree strongly, and ask where you find that in the rules. That would lead to Shield, for example, having no target, since it can only be cast on yourself. If your argument is not that broad, but is instead specifically that only "a point of origin is not a target unless it is chosen by the caster from more than one possible points of origin," then I'd disagree if anything even more strenuously, because not only is there no support for the rule in general in the PHB, there's also no support for treating point-of-origin-targets substantially different from creature-targets.
I think our positions have been made clear enough, and that if you were going to quote some new PHB language you would have done so by now. I'll duck back out of this thread for another 6 months now and see what shakes loose in 2022. :p
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I can't believe I'm doing this, but we're going back to the first dang page.
So, let's take these one at a time:
Metamagic can tricky, and I don't blame anyone for getting a little confused. But something we all have to remember is the rules are written in natural language. They're meant to be simple and easy to understand. It's what makes this edition of the game so accessible. Once upon a time, this was the rules on grappling. Printed in the 3.5 Player's Handbook, it was almost two full pages worth of text; not including feats and rules from other chapters and sections of the book that would modify your rolls and other interactions. Now it's just this.
We do not need precise, razor-sharp language to define everything for us.
You can disagree with the assessments I gave above. Or not, I don't really care. I don't play at your table, so it's no skin off my back. All I ask is everyone here be honest in what they say and do, and that you all remain cognizant of how your altering the rules will impact other elements of your game. This is why I care so much what the designers, including Crawford, say; even if it's not published in an "official" Sage Advice document. (Which is, in case anyone has forgotten, merely advice. We're all free to ignore it and do whatever we want.) Dungeon Masters are also designers. If you publish anything on DM's Guild, you're a designer. If you publish homebrew on this website, you're a designer.
And maybe I'm in the minority, but I think it's important to want to understand that process.
And, yes, not everyone who is a professional in their field knows what they're talking about. There are no shortage of incompetent lawyers on Twitter or YouTube, going off about subjects they're objectively wrong about. Or even laypeople who constantly think they know more than they actually do because they can't come to grips with their own inadequacies, even if that just means they're not an expert in everything.
And, yes, Asimov did lose an argument with a Columbia professor over the literary interpretation of one of his novels. Or, at least, that's how the anecdote goes. But none of us are that professor, and we're not artistic interpretations. We're debating rules, and, like it or not, we have the word of perhaps the single best-qualified person in the world to consult on those rules. Because everything goes past him. We shouldn't be so eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater because it's inconvenient.