Chicken_Champ, I do not think you understood what i stated in that post.
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.
The point of origin of Fireball is the target because everything in the blast is targeted which explicitly includes the point of origin. It makes sense that if you explode someone, that someone is probably considered a target of that spell, and if the spell explicitly states the point of origin get exploded, then the point of origin is probably a target
I stated that in the Fireball spell, it says that "point of origin is included in the sphere's area of effect". If the point of origin is "included in the sphere's area of effect" of course that means the point of origin is a target.
I get that I could of been specific and saying that "point of origin is the target" rather than "point of origin is included in the area of effect", which would of been more concise and clear, but I wanted to stick to the language present in the Basic Rules.
In other words, Fireball states the point of origin is the target, because Fireball references the point of origin rules that says spells like Fireball taget the point of origin.
But Burning Hands states the point of origin is not the target unless the caster wants it to be, because Burning Hands references different point of origin rules that state spells like Burning Hands do not target the point of origin unless the caster wants otherwise.
Is it so complicated that a spell when talking about a point of origin, references the point of origin rules? That seems like a given.
Edit: Wrote the post when I was getting pretty annoyed at the current length of this thread, calmed down a bit and toned the post down. Sorry if you saw the original post and felt a bit attacked, that wasn't intentional.
But Burning Hands states the point of origin is not the target unless the caster wants it to be, because Burning Hands references different point of origin rules that state spells like Burning Hands do not target the point of origin unless the caster wants otherwise.
100% false.
Burning Hands doesn't state anything about points of origin in its description - I'm not sure if you intended to say that it did, and I'm not accusing you of such, I just want to be explicitly clear that it has nothing in its spell description modifying the general rules.
Said general rules are the same as for Booming Blade - i.e. both are self-targeted AOEs - with the only distinction being any special rules those two AOEs have. The special rule cones have, which I think is what you're referring to, is:
Cone
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.
See how the word target isn't there? Burning Hands absolutely targets its point of origin, which is the caster. What it doesn't do is include its point of origin in its area of effect, unless you want it to. You can't cast Burning Hands with War Caster, and Shield Master won't grant +2 to your Dex save against Burning Hands, even when there's only one creature being burned by the cone, because the spell targets its point of origin, as the rules pretty clearly state and as has been already discussed in this thread.
Where does it say Burning Hands targets it's point of origin? The only thing anyone has ever stated so was this quote:
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range. For a spell like magic missile, the target is a creature. For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts.
Which doesn't even mention Point of Origin at all, nor does it even apply to Burning Hands as it has a range far greater than just yourself (it says the target has to be within range, not that everyone within range is a target).
And besides, reminder, the target of Burning Hands is everyone who takes fire damage. No offence, but if every time i cast Burning Hands I take the same damage as my enemy, I'm going to stop playing a caster real quick.
Edit: You can't say your the target, without any sort of textual evidence, and then ignore all the consequences for that said action. Besides, it states pretty clearly that: (quote)
Spells such as burning hands and cone of cold cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.
A spell's description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere. 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.
The area of effect determines who is affected. If your trying to argue to me that if a creature is affected by a spell, it's not the target, and if a creature isn't affected by a spell, it is a target, then I am extremely confused.
Rules on point of origin:
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.
That's it. Every AoE has a point of origin, and the shape determines how you handle it.
That's all. Nothing about a target in there. The point of origin can be the target, or can not be the target, the two are completely separate labels with no overlap except for when a spell shape adds a rule to connect the two.
The main issue here is that you believe that Booming Blade targets the caster (which I don't), and that the caster is the point of origin. Thus, the two must obviously be connected despite the fact that literally nothing states so. Just because a is b once or twice, does not mean a is always b. (Aside from the obvious BB doesn't target the caster issue which I've made like 5 posts on already)
For a spell like magic missile, the target is a creature.
For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts.
These are the only two examples given for “target” on the context of “range”. So we are left to figure out what “like fireball” and “like Magic Missile” mean.
The natural-language reading, to me is:
Creature: For spells that direct the effect at a specific creature, the target is the creature
Área: For spells that direct an effect at an area or space, the target isthe point of origin.
note: These seem intended as the only two options for target in the context of range/location, with further text specifying subtypes. RAW is natural language is you HAVE to make these kind of inferences, AND people can infer differently. Below is the most consistent inference set I can make.
More subtypes are described within creature vs Area:
Creature-feet: “most-spells”, a creature
Area-feet: “most spells”, point in space
Creature-touch: “touch”
Creature-Self: “affect only you”
Area-Self: shaped effect that originates from you, have a range of self, origin point of the spell's effect must be you (see “Areas of Effect”)
Going down the list, Booming Blade with “Self (5)”:
is not Creature-feet
is not Area-feet
Is not Touch
not Creature-self: Does not affect only you
Does fit Area-Self(radius) subtype
So, I’m convinced the best/only fit for its range type is an AoE with range of Self (5). For the purposes of range:
the point of origin is the target (all Area spells)
Self is the point of origin (AoE-Self sub type)
so Self is the target
But is Self “targeted”?
Let’s check the rules on Aoe-Self:
Cover an area
Can affect multiple creatures at once
description specifies its area of effect
5 typical shapes
Of the 5, the only one that we have complete info for - only a radius and origin - is the sphere. “The sphere's size is expressed as a radius in feet that extends from the point (of origin).”
Checking against BB: Kind of covers an area by having a radius. It was the only option left in range types.
Maybe: Affects multiple targets if you consider the caster to be compelled to make a weapon attack
No shape specified but,
we have a radius (5) and point of origin (self), which is all we need or sphere, and consistent with other Self(radius) spells.
So by two rounds of elimination, we know:
it’s an AoE (Self) spell, nothing else fits for range rules
The only shape we can use is Sphere, since we only have Point of Origin and radius.
The point of origin is included in Sphere (AoE rules)
The point of origin is the target for AoE (range rules)
The point of origin is self (AoE-Self rules)
Self is the Target for BB range, because it is an AoE-Self with Sphere shape.
So … is Self targeted? The RAW has a contradiction here.
AoE-Self has a range of Self
Range of Self affects only you
AoE can affect multiple creatures
So AoE-Self spells affect only you AND can affect multiple creatures… ok WOTC
The way to make sense of this is by thinking of Range as having those two branches, one set having a creature as the target, the other having a area/space as target.
You also need to distinguish “Is the target” (where spell effects take place) vs “targets” (act of subjecting something to the spell effects), or you do silly things like Fireball forcing the empty spaces in area-target to make Dex saves.
Creature-Self “targets” you, the creature, AND you “are the target”. AoE-Self uses the space you occupy as the target, but may or may not “target” [subject to the effects of the spell] you or your space. Gotta read each spell to know what it actually “targets” and what “is the target”, which may not be the same.
Strictly RAW, both subtypes do have a range of “Self” but in both cases it is there to further refine“creature” or “space” ’range type. The statement “affects only you” applies only to Creature-Self, not AoE-Self.
So does BB “target” more than one creature?
I don’t think the entry under “AoE” *require* it to affect multiple creatures; an AoE just typically can. Specific overrides general, though.
BB interaction. comes down to two things:
Do you read “is the target” the same as “targets” (affects)? If so, BB definitely “targets” two creatures, but Fireball also forces empty spaces to make Dex saves. If they’re different, then consider….
Does the weapon attack happen because of the spell, or is it part of the casting? If it’s an effect of the spell, the caster is affected and thus Targeted. If part of the casting, like a somatic component, then maybe not… but how will that work with Subtle spell?
On that second point, you are clearly taking the Cast A Spell action. I can’t explain away Subtle meta on a melee weapon attack (although that’d be hilarious), and we have “brandishing” as a somatic, so I doubt it’s part of the casting itself. The weapon attack happens after spell is cast, as one of the effects of the spell, and the effect targets the caster.
I came around to this conclusion:
it is an AoE (Self) Spell (no Distant)
It affects the caster by making them do a melee weapon attack.
It affects a Target within a 5ft sphere vía Thunder damage
It isn’t viable for twinning (targets/affects 2 creatures)
It isn’t viable for Warcaster (same)
It isn’t viable for distant (radius AoE)
WoTC, what the heck guys.
Taking a bit more liberty with reading, I’d call BB a line AoE that’s exactly as wide as your weapon with length 5ft. This makes more intuitive sense than a sphere based on the description of the spell - one line of effect along a sword, from caster to a single enemy, limited to 5ft because Magic.
Doesn’t matter, you still can’t Twin, Warcaster, or Distant because the Catch isn’t that the caster “is a target”, it’s that the caster is affected (targets two creatures, whether or not the caster “is the target”).
Excellent, thorough analysis Pwnzr. I do think at one point you sort of conflate “affect” with “target”… it’s unanswered whether all spells treat their affected creatures as targets, or just those that say they do, or if the RAI maybe doesn’t match all spell descriptions and some errata are needed, or what. See post #370 for three possibilities.
The fact that we need discussions like this show the failure of the natural language approach.
Only in venues where very specific rulings are important such as AL. The resurgence of DND and the accessibility and broad uptake of 5E In new audiences makes me think it was a resounding success, for its primary goal.
Most players don’t want to read logical semantic flows, and people like us are going to argue about it anyway :)
Not that it's going to satisfy everyone/anyone in this conversation (or really say anything new), but Booming Blade straight up specifies who/what its target is, and that it's only one target.
(bold added for emphasis) "You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn."
There's one and only one target and "5ft" limits the reach. It's a self spell, not an AoE (the area is self, the range is 5ft). This lines up just fine with Crawford's ruling that it works with War Caster. As for Twinning, it's still a self spell, so that doesn't work. The language may not be super precise, but it is pretty clear in what it's saying. Really, the problem is "range/area" being a single field in spell descriptions.
Excellent, thorough analysis Pwnzr. I do think at one point you sort of conflate “affect” with “target”… it’s unanswered whether all spells treat their affected creatures as targets, or just those that say they do, or if the RAI maybe doesn’t match all spell descriptions and some errata are needed, or what. See post #370 for three possibilities.
Thanks, much is it guided by your own precious posts and just trying to lay it all out on one flow :)
I do think there has to be a fundamental difference between “is the target of” = where the spell goes, and the active “the spell Targets” = spell affects this thing.
A follow-on is what “counts as targets”, the noun-targets? Is it where the spell goes? What the spell effects? Both?
If both, you’d still have to explain why Fireball doesn’t force its place-target to make a Dex saving throw. Rule out that silliness by limiting “counts as target” to “affected by the spell”.
RAI from sage advice compendium regarding the intent of “twinned”, seems to use the “affects” definition of target (the verb!):
Can affect more than one creature
force more than one creature to make a saving throw
make a roll that can affect more than one creature
Note two active-voice “affects” and another active-voice “forces” (which can be abstracted to “affects”).
That doesn’t answer what “counts as a target” in general, but at least for the purpose of twinning, “targets” (the verb) seems to be clearly RAI “what the spell affects”; there is no passive “is the target of” sort of wording in RAW or RAI for this feature.
Generally speaking… yeah, “counts as a target” is poorly defined. I think it’ll be way cleaner to use a working definition like “it is a target if it affected by the spell in a meaningful way”; IMO, simply being the point of origin is not a meaningful in-game effect.
Not that it's going to satisfy everyone/anyone in this conversation (or really say anything new), but Booming Blade straight up specifies who/what its target is, and that it's only one target.
(bold added for emphasis) "You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn."
This is all I care about. I appreciate the meticulous approach pwnzer took, but all the implicit rules and logic-chaining in the world are thrown in the trash when they are specifically, explicitly contradicted. Specific beats general and explicit beats implicit. The target is what the spell says the target is. Period.
Not that it's going to satisfy everyone/anyone in this conversation (or really say anything new), but Booming Blade straight up specifies who/what its target is, and that it's only one target.
(bold added for emphasis) "You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn."
This is all I care about. I appreciate the meticulous approach pwnzer took, but all the implicit rules and logic-chaining in the world are thrown in the trash when they are specifically, explicitly contradicted. Specific beats general and explicit beats implicit. The target is what the spell says the target is. Period.
The spell says one of the targets is the caster, though. It's right there, in the range section of it. That's what Range: Self (5-foot radius) means. The definition of a spell's range is the range to the primary target, which here is Self. The 5-foot radius describes the size of the AOE that happens at the listed range.
I don't really understand why people are jumping through so many logical hoops to avoid this. It's incredibly straightforward, and the new interpretations people keep bringing to the party have consequences impacting a significant number of other spells (which I provided in this thread), sometimes consequences the PCs can't reason about because the person is applying logical hoops to BB that are deeply non-obvious when applied to other spells, like Thunderwave and Leomund's Tiny Hut.
Not that it's going to satisfy everyone/anyone in this conversation (or really say anything new), but Booming Blade straight up specifies who/what its target is, and that it's only one target.
(bold added for emphasis) "You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn."
This is all I care about. I appreciate the meticulous approach pwnzer took, but all the implicit rules and logic-chaining in the world are thrown in the trash when they are specifically, explicitly contradicted. Specific beats general and explicit beats implicit. The target is what the spell says the target is. Period.
The spell says one of the targets is the caster, though. It's right there, in the range section of it. That's what Range: Self (5-foot radius) means. The definition of a spell's range is the range to the primary target, which here is Self. The 5-foot radius describes the size of the AOE that happens at the listed range.
I get why you think that is implied, but it's never said. In fact, the spell description says "the target," not "a target." As in there is only one, and it's the one specified in the text.
There is no AoE. "Self" specifies that it's a self spell, not an area spell. "5ft" is a reminder of the range. It never actually says "self (5-foot radius)." It doesn't say "radius" or "cone" or "sphere" or "cube" or "line" or "cylinder" anywhere.
(Edit: it does say "radius" in Tasha's, but not in the spell description, and still doesn't say it has an area.)
Further edit: it works with War Caster because it only has one target. "It only has one target" is not a consequence of a complicated cascade of different rules interacting --- it is a direct consequence of the spell description describing only one target, using common language (the definitive article).
It is, though. Chapter 10 says that spells with points of origin treat those points of origin as their targets. Yes, it says so implicitly, by describing that "spells like" Fireball do so... but I challenge anyone to coherently tell me what contrasting Magic Missile with Fireball was supposed to mean, if not that AOE spells target their point of origin, while non-AOE spells target their target. As Pwnzr broke down, it's to illustrate that there's basically two types of spells, and BB is clearly more "like" Fireball than Magic Missile in that respect, because it’s AOE.
There is no textual support for Points of Origin NOT being targets, and there is that section of Chapter 10 telling you that they ARE.
All of these hoops that people jump through to avoid "Range: Self (5 foot radius)" meaning "self" is target.... it's all just to keep BB Warcaster eligible. It's the JC apologists that are having the most trouble understanding the targeting rules, and that's why I have such a big chip on my shoulder about his rulings. It's not just that he throws around RAI rulings that don't seem to have any identifiable basis in RAW... it's that often his rulings are so imprecise and far-reaching, that he introduces FURTHER confusion into ADJACENT rule topics that weren't in question.
Pile up all the arguments one could make about why "Range: Self (5 foot radius)" ISN'T targeting your self.... and the only one you'll find is, "well that would mean JC is wrong about BB and Warcaster." If you take that ruling out of the equation, its hard to imagine where everyone even got this idea in the first place.
Is there even a reason why Booming Blade needs to target self at all? It could have easily been a Range: 5 ft spell with practically no changes other than maybe a note addressing weapons with reach (which honestly the real version needs too). Looking at other spells like it (mainly primal savagery) there is no change to the caster that would warrant the effect targeting them at all.
....I just realized that that was the original version of the spell...still, was it really that broken before?
They changed it to Range: Self (5 foot radius) presumably to stop it being useable with Twinned Spell and Distant Spell. There really was no other reason to revise that range, because that's the only thing that changed with the errata. I just really don't think they realized that they were turning Twinned Spell off in two ways (by both giving it a range of Self AND increasing it to two targets), one of which would cause Warcaster to be collateral damage. It's telling that JC never saw fit to try to explain away points of origins as not being targets until after the BB/GFB errata, and when he did so, that part didn't make its way into SAC. His ruling "it still works with War Caster" is entirely pinned on "a point of origin isn't a target" as reasoning, but they will never print that in SAC, because it's directly in contradiction with Chapter 10 language.
Really, I think that Twinned Spell is all they were really worried about. And that was probably because of the Bladesinger Extra Attack that they were about to publish: they didn't want Bladesinger/Sorcerers or Bladesingers with Metamagic Adept to be able to attack three times per Attack at level 6, by Twinning the cantrip.
Is there even a reason why Booming Blade needs to target self at all? It could have easily been a Range: 5 ft spell with practically no changes other than maybe a note addressing weapons with reach (which honestly the real version needs too). Looking at other spells like it (mainly primal savagery) there is no change to the caster that would warrant the effect targeting them at all.
....I just realized that that was the original version of the spell...still, was it really that broken before?
It wasn't....the change make literally no sense to me.
Is there even a reason why Booming Blade needs to target self at all? It could have easily been a Range: 5 ft spell with practically no changes other than maybe a note addressing weapons with reach (which honestly the real version needs too). Looking at other spells like it (mainly primal savagery) there is no change to the caster that would warrant the effect targeting them at all.
....I just realized that that was the original version of the spell...still, was it really that broken before?
Presumably it was to prevent Twinned (etc) from working with it. Because they didn't want metamagic to grant multiple weapon attacks in a single casting action.
Is there even a reason why Booming Blade needs to target self at all? It could have easily been a Range: 5 ft spell with practically no changes other than maybe a note addressing weapons with reach (which honestly the real version needs too). Looking at other spells like it (mainly primal savagery) there is no change to the caster that would warrant the effect targeting them at all.
....I just realized that that was the original version of the spell...still, was it really that broken before?
Presumably it was to prevent Twinned (etc) from working with it. Because they didn't want metamagic to grant multiple weapon attacks in a single casting action.
Quicken still works I guess so its not like you can't get multiple slaps off...you are just reducing it by 1.
Excellent, thorough analysis Pwnzr. I do think at one point you sort of conflate “affect” with “target”… it’s unanswered whether all spells treat their affected creatures as targets, or just those that say they do, or if the RAI maybe doesn’t match all spell descriptions and some errata are needed, or what. See post #370 for three possibilities.
It is correct to conflate "affect" and "target" because the rulebook does it.
To reiterate, the word target is used in three ways regarding spellcasting:
1. In the Range section where we hear that "the target" is within the range, and we learn that a creature chosen for Magic Missile, or a point chosen for Fireball is "the target". Touch spells "target" one creature. There is no clear ruling of "the target" of a Self spell at all, they either "affect" you or "originate from" you. Neither sentence expressly declares "you" a target (and in truth no "targeting" has happened at all, in that no choice is made).
2. In the Targets section we learn that targets are typically things picked to be affected by the spell, and that a spell description will help with that. Not much else here. (Note that this definition of target disagrees with the wording from the Range section, since many creatures affected by many spells are well outside the distance in the range box for that spell.)
3. In spell descriptions we get the word target sometimes appearing - usually used casually later in the effect description to talk about some creature(s) that was chosen earlier or who sits within some area of effect. Often, they will contradict or override the concept of targeting used in the Range or Targets section (as Fireball does when it calls the creatures in the area targets, but not the point of origin selected), or when they use "the target" (singular) even when we should otherwise suspect that there are more than one target involved (like Ice Knife, which calls only the initial creature "the target", but everyone else hit by the damage must also be considered targets since they are clearly affected by the end of the spell.)
So, there's what we have - and unfortunately for anyone trying to decode the "true RAW" on the topic, these three usages of "target" just fundamentally do not align into a single, cohesive, and clear concept. There is no one definition of the verb "target", the noun "the target", or even "a target". If you think you have found the one true interpretation of RAW, then you are using inference that does not exist in the text. For example, the text does not imply that a "point of origin" is a target. It only gives examples where a target serves as a point of origin - not the other way around. You can infer that the inverse is true, but it isn't written down - and we know that it is not the intention of the designers since Sage Advice says BB works with Warcaster (therefore they don't consider the caster to be a target of that Self-range spell).
The example it gives of fireball is precisely the “other way around” example you’re saying doesn’t exist. We have a spell, which itself talks about its point of origin point in space, and it’s affected creature targets. Chapter 10 uses that spell as an example that spells “like” Fireball target their points of origin, treat their points of origin as “the target,” however you want to say it.
If that isn’t to illustrate a general rule that points of origin for AOEs are targets, again, please explain what that sentence was for.
I’ll agree that there are two or three different meanings of target casually/interchangeably used. It is very unclear to me whether affected creatures are always targets (is a person that eats a Goodberry a target? Is someone who walks through a Spike Growth a target? Someone whacked by Magic Stone several rounds after it was cast?), I suspect “no.” But it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that points of origin always are, because we have one example of the PHB saying they are in Chapter 10 while DEFINING TARGETS of spells, and zero examples of the PHB saying they aren’t, there or anywhere else.
Take yes for an answer, a rule doesn’t need to be stated twice to be a rule.
Chicken_Champ, I do not think you understood what i stated in that post.
The point of origin of Fireball is the target because everything in the blast is targeted which explicitly includes the point of origin. It makes sense that if you explode someone, that someone is probably considered a target of that spell, and if the spell explicitly states the point of origin get exploded, then the point of origin is probably a target
I stated that in the Fireball spell, it says that "point of origin is included in the sphere's area of effect". If the point of origin is "included in the sphere's area of effect" of course that means the point of origin is a target.
I get that I could of been specific and saying that "point of origin is the target" rather than "point of origin is included in the area of effect", which would of been more concise and clear, but I wanted to stick to the language present in the Basic Rules.
In other words, Fireball states the point of origin is the target, because Fireball references the point of origin rules that says spells like Fireball taget the point of origin.
But Burning Hands states the point of origin is not the target unless the caster wants it to be, because Burning Hands references different point of origin rules that state spells like Burning Hands do not target the point of origin unless the caster wants otherwise.
Is it so complicated that a spell when talking about a point of origin, references the point of origin rules? That seems like a given.
Edit: Wrote the post when I was getting pretty annoyed at the current length of this thread, calmed down a bit and toned the post down. Sorry if you saw the original post and felt a bit attacked, that wasn't 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.
100% false.
Burning Hands doesn't state anything about points of origin in its description - I'm not sure if you intended to say that it did, and I'm not accusing you of such, I just want to be explicitly clear that it has nothing in its spell description modifying the general rules.
Said general rules are the same as for Booming Blade - i.e. both are self-targeted AOEs - with the only distinction being any special rules those two AOEs have. The special rule cones have, which I think is what you're referring to, is:
See how the word target isn't there? Burning Hands absolutely targets its point of origin, which is the caster. What it doesn't do is include its point of origin in its area of effect, unless you want it to. You can't cast Burning Hands with War Caster, and Shield Master won't grant +2 to your Dex save against Burning Hands, even when there's only one creature being burned by the cone, because the spell targets its point of origin, as the rules pretty clearly state and as has been already discussed in this thread.
Where does it say Burning Hands targets it's point of origin? The only thing anyone has ever stated so was this quote:
Which doesn't even mention Point of Origin at all, nor does it even apply to Burning Hands as it has a range far greater than just yourself (it says the target has to be within range, not that everyone within range is a target).
And besides, reminder, the target of Burning Hands is everyone who takes fire damage. No offence, but if every time i cast Burning Hands I take the same damage as my enemy, I'm going to stop playing a caster real quick.
Edit: You can't say your the target, without any sort of textual evidence, and then ignore all the consequences for that said action. Besides, it states pretty clearly that: (quote)
The area of effect determines who is affected. If your trying to argue to me that if a creature is affected by a spell, it's not the target, and if a creature isn't affected by a spell, it is a target, then I am extremely confused.
Rules on point of origin:
That's it. Every AoE has a point of origin, and the shape determines how you handle it.
That's all. Nothing about a target in there. The point of origin can be the target, or can not be the target, the two are completely separate labels with no overlap except for when a spell shape adds a rule to connect the two.
The main issue here is that you believe that Booming Blade targets the caster (which I don't), and that the caster is the point of origin. Thus, the two must obviously be connected despite the fact that literally nothing states so. Just because a is b once or twice, does not mean a is always b. (Aside from the obvious BB doesn't target the caster issue which I've made like 5 posts on already)
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.
Issue at hand:
So we need to figure out:
PHB on range:
These are the only two examples given for “target” on the context of “range”. So we are left to figure out what “like fireball” and “like Magic Missile” mean.
The natural-language reading, to me is:
More subtypes are described within creature vs Area:
Going down the list, Booming Blade with “Self (5)”:
So, I’m convinced the best/only fit for its range type is an AoE with range of Self (5). For the purposes of range:
Let’s check the rules on Aoe-Self:
Checking against BB: Kind of covers an area by having a radius. It was the only option left in range types.
So by two rounds of elimination, we know:
So … is Self targeted? The RAW has a contradiction here.
The way to make sense of this is by thinking of Range as having those two branches, one set having a creature as the target, the other having a area/space as target.
You also need to distinguish “Is the target” (where spell effects take place) vs “targets” (act of subjecting something to the spell effects), or you do silly things like Fireball forcing the empty spaces in area-target to make Dex saves.
Creature-Self “targets” you, the creature, AND you “are the target”. AoE-Self uses the space you occupy as the target, but may or may not “target” [subject to the effects of the spell] you or your space. Gotta read each spell to know what it actually “targets” and what “is the target”, which may not be the same.
Strictly RAW, both subtypes do have a range of “Self” but in both cases it is there to further refine “creature” or “space” ’range type. The statement “affects only you” applies only to Creature-Self, not AoE-Self.
So does BB “target” more than one creature?
I don’t think the entry under “AoE” *require* it to affect multiple creatures; an AoE just typically can. Specific overrides general, though.
BB interaction. comes down to two things:
On that second point, you are clearly taking the Cast A Spell action. I can’t explain away Subtle meta on a melee weapon attack (although that’d be hilarious), and we have “brandishing” as a somatic, so I doubt it’s part of the casting itself. The weapon attack happens after spell is cast, as one of the effects of the spell, and the effect targets the caster.
I came around to this conclusion:
Taking a bit more liberty with reading, I’d call BB a line AoE that’s exactly as wide as your weapon with length 5ft. This makes more intuitive sense than a sphere based on the description of the spell - one line of effect along a sword, from caster to a single enemy, limited to 5ft because Magic.
Doesn’t matter, you still can’t Twin, Warcaster, or Distant because the Catch isn’t that the caster “is a target”, it’s that the caster is affected (targets two creatures, whether or not the caster “is the target”).
The fact that we need discussions like this show the failure of the natural language approach.
Excellent, thorough analysis Pwnzr. I do think at one point you sort of conflate “affect” with “target”… it’s unanswered whether all spells treat their affected creatures as targets, or just those that say they do, or if the RAI maybe doesn’t match all spell descriptions and some errata are needed, or what. See post #370 for three possibilities.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Only in venues where very specific rulings are important such as AL. The resurgence of DND and the accessibility and broad uptake of 5E In new audiences makes me think it was a resounding success, for its primary goal.
Most players don’t want to read logical semantic flows, and people like us are going to argue about it anyway :)
Not that it's going to satisfy everyone/anyone in this conversation (or really say anything new), but Booming Blade straight up specifies who/what its target is, and that it's only one target.
(bold added for emphasis) "You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn."
There's one and only one target and "5ft" limits the reach. It's a self spell, not an AoE (the area is self, the range is 5ft). This lines up just fine with Crawford's ruling that it works with War Caster. As for Twinning, it's still a self spell, so that doesn't work. The language may not be super precise, but it is pretty clear in what it's saying. Really, the problem is "range/area" being a single field in spell descriptions.
Thanks, much is it guided by your own precious posts and just trying to lay it all out on one flow :)
I do think there has to be a fundamental difference between “is the target of” = where the spell goes, and the active “the spell Targets” = spell affects this thing.
A follow-on is what “counts as targets”, the noun-targets? Is it where the spell goes? What the spell effects? Both?
If both, you’d still have to explain why Fireball doesn’t force its place-target to make a Dex saving throw. Rule out that silliness by limiting “counts as target” to “affected by the spell”.
RAI from sage advice compendium regarding the intent of “twinned”, seems to use the “affects” definition of target (the verb!):
Note two active-voice “affects” and another active-voice “forces” (which can be abstracted to “affects”).
That doesn’t answer what “counts as a target” in general, but at least for the purpose of twinning, “targets” (the verb) seems to be clearly RAI “what the spell affects”; there is no passive “is the target of” sort of wording in RAW or RAI for this feature.
Generally speaking… yeah, “counts as a target” is poorly defined. I think it’ll be way cleaner to use a working definition like “it is a target if it affected by the spell in a meaningful way”; IMO, simply being the point of origin is not a meaningful in-game effect.
This is all I care about. I appreciate the meticulous approach pwnzer took, but all the implicit rules and logic-chaining in the world are thrown in the trash when they are specifically, explicitly contradicted. Specific beats general and explicit beats implicit. The target is what the spell says the target is. Period.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
The spell says one of the targets is the caster, though. It's right there, in the range section of it. That's what Range: Self (5-foot radius) means. The definition of a spell's range is the range to the primary target, which here is Self. The 5-foot radius describes the size of the AOE that happens at the listed range.
I don't really understand why people are jumping through so many logical hoops to avoid this. It's incredibly straightforward, and the new interpretations people keep bringing to the party have consequences impacting a significant number of other spells (which I provided in this thread), sometimes consequences the PCs can't reason about because the person is applying logical hoops to BB that are deeply non-obvious when applied to other spells, like Thunderwave and Leomund's Tiny Hut.
I get why you think that is implied, but it's never said. In fact, the spell description says "the target," not "a target." As in there is only one, and it's the one specified in the text.
There is no AoE. "Self" specifies that it's a self spell, not an area spell. "5ft" is a reminder of the range. It never actually says "self (5-foot radius)." It doesn't say "radius" or "cone" or "sphere" or "cube" or "line" or "cylinder" anywhere.
(Edit: it does say "radius" in Tasha's, but not in the spell description, and still doesn't say it has an area.)
Further edit: it works with War Caster because it only has one target. "It only has one target" is not a consequence of a complicated cascade of different rules interacting --- it is a direct consequence of the spell description describing only one target, using common language (the definitive article).
It is, though. Chapter 10 says that spells with points of origin treat those points of origin as their targets. Yes, it says so implicitly, by describing that "spells like" Fireball do so... but I challenge anyone to coherently tell me what contrasting Magic Missile with Fireball was supposed to mean, if not that AOE spells target their point of origin, while non-AOE spells target their target. As Pwnzr broke down, it's to illustrate that there's basically two types of spells, and BB is clearly more "like" Fireball than Magic Missile in that respect, because it’s AOE.
There is no textual support for Points of Origin NOT being targets, and there is that section of Chapter 10 telling you that they ARE.
All of these hoops that people jump through to avoid "Range: Self (5 foot radius)" meaning "self" is target.... it's all just to keep BB Warcaster eligible. It's the JC apologists that are having the most trouble understanding the targeting rules, and that's why I have such a big chip on my shoulder about his rulings. It's not just that he throws around RAI rulings that don't seem to have any identifiable basis in RAW... it's that often his rulings are so imprecise and far-reaching, that he introduces FURTHER confusion into ADJACENT rule topics that weren't in question.
Pile up all the arguments one could make about why "Range: Self (5 foot radius)" ISN'T targeting your self.... and the only one you'll find is, "well that would mean JC is wrong about BB and Warcaster." If you take that ruling out of the equation, its hard to imagine where everyone even got this idea in the first place.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Is there even a reason why Booming Blade needs to target self at all? It could have easily been a Range: 5 ft spell with practically no changes other than maybe a note addressing weapons with reach (which honestly the real version needs too). Looking at other spells like it (mainly primal savagery) there is no change to the caster that would warrant the effect targeting them at all.
....I just realized that that was the original version of the spell...still, was it really that broken before?
They changed it to Range: Self (5 foot radius) presumably to stop it being useable with Twinned Spell and Distant Spell. There really was no other reason to revise that range, because that's the only thing that changed with the errata. I just really don't think they realized that they were turning Twinned Spell off in two ways (by both giving it a range of Self AND increasing it to two targets), one of which would cause Warcaster to be collateral damage. It's telling that JC never saw fit to try to explain away points of origins as not being targets until after the BB/GFB errata, and when he did so, that part didn't make its way into SAC. His ruling "it still works with War Caster" is entirely pinned on "a point of origin isn't a target" as reasoning, but they will never print that in SAC, because it's directly in contradiction with Chapter 10 language.
Really, I think that Twinned Spell is all they were really worried about. And that was probably because of the Bladesinger Extra Attack that they were about to publish: they didn't want Bladesinger/Sorcerers or Bladesingers with Metamagic Adept to be able to attack three times per Attack at level 6, by Twinning the cantrip.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It wasn't....the change make literally no sense to me.
Presumably it was to prevent Twinned (etc) from working with it. Because they didn't want metamagic to grant multiple weapon attacks in a single casting action.
Quicken still works I guess so its not like you can't get multiple slaps off...you are just reducing it by 1.
But I see your point for sure.
It is correct to conflate "affect" and "target" because the rulebook does it.
To reiterate, the word target is used in three ways regarding spellcasting:
1. In the Range section where we hear that "the target" is within the range, and we learn that a creature chosen for Magic Missile, or a point chosen for Fireball is "the target". Touch spells "target" one creature. There is no clear ruling of "the target" of a Self spell at all, they either "affect" you or "originate from" you. Neither sentence expressly declares "you" a target (and in truth no "targeting" has happened at all, in that no choice is made).
2. In the Targets section we learn that targets are typically things picked to be affected by the spell, and that a spell description will help with that. Not much else here. (Note that this definition of target disagrees with the wording from the Range section, since many creatures affected by many spells are well outside the distance in the range box for that spell.)
3. In spell descriptions we get the word target sometimes appearing - usually used casually later in the effect description to talk about some creature(s) that was chosen earlier or who sits within some area of effect. Often, they will contradict or override the concept of targeting used in the Range or Targets section (as Fireball does when it calls the creatures in the area targets, but not the point of origin selected), or when they use "the target" (singular) even when we should otherwise suspect that there are more than one target involved (like Ice Knife, which calls only the initial creature "the target", but everyone else hit by the damage must also be considered targets since they are clearly affected by the end of the spell.)
So, there's what we have - and unfortunately for anyone trying to decode the "true RAW" on the topic, these three usages of "target" just fundamentally do not align into a single, cohesive, and clear concept. There is no one definition of the verb "target", the noun "the target", or even "a target". If you think you have found the one true interpretation of RAW, then you are using inference that does not exist in the text. For example, the text does not imply that a "point of origin" is a target. It only gives examples where a target serves as a point of origin - not the other way around. You can infer that the inverse is true, but it isn't written down - and we know that it is not the intention of the designers since Sage Advice says BB works with Warcaster (therefore they don't consider the caster to be a target of that Self-range spell).
The example it gives of fireball is precisely the “other way around” example you’re saying doesn’t exist. We have a spell, which itself talks about its point of origin point in space, and it’s affected creature targets. Chapter 10 uses that spell as an example that spells “like” Fireball target their points of origin, treat their points of origin as “the target,” however you want to say it.
If that isn’t to illustrate a general rule that points of origin for AOEs are targets, again, please explain what that sentence was for.
I’ll agree that there are two or three different meanings of target casually/interchangeably used. It is very unclear to me whether affected creatures are always targets (is a person that eats a Goodberry a target? Is someone who walks through a Spike Growth a target? Someone whacked by Magic Stone several rounds after it was cast?), I suspect “no.” But it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that points of origin always are, because we have one example of the PHB saying they are in Chapter 10 while DEFINING TARGETS of spells, and zero examples of the PHB saying they aren’t, there or anywhere else.
Take yes for an answer, a rule doesn’t need to be stated twice to be a rule.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.