....weird take Proxy, and disagree with literally everything you said! :D
its not a weird take it is how it reads, it does not say "make a melee spell attack ageist a target" like shocking grasp it says " you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range" it doesn't say the weapon attack is part of the spell nor does it actually target a creature because the weapon attack targets said creature, and distant spell only effects the spells range not your melee weapons range, I was very clear and used quotes from the actually spell, I explained its interaction with distant spell and to be eligible for twined spell meta magic it must 1. target a creature (witch it does not) 2. only target ONE creature and 3. not have a range of self, I mean you can disagree if you want, you would be wrong but you can if you like.
Firstly, the spell has a range, and clearly has a creature as its target... your argument would imply the target is the weapon, which is absurd for many reasons.
Secondly, the spell range of 5ft matters tremendously when trying to use a weapon with reach. For example: using a reach weapon with with warcaster and polearm master feats allowing you to cast a spell, for which, based on the current wording BB would qualify, as an AoO. However, you couldn't hit the target with BB without spell sniper to increase its range to match the reach of your weapon. Which, by the way, is a long way around to achieve something that the sentinel feat already achieves in one OP feat, but this way is thematically way cooler, and offers a reasonably reliable way of setting off the BB proc, because let's face it, most GMs metagame the shit out of BB anyways.
This is why Proxy is wrong, and also why the changing of the range to self is so problematic without some other errata we are unaware of to address this issue.
It doesn't seem logical to nerf this, even with the huge amount of possible damage as an AoO, simply because, unlike how you said it is resource free.. it clearly isn't, requiring 2-3 feats to accomplish. I'd say thats pretty resource prohibitive. Not to mention, for a Caster, this uses up your reaction which then precludes things such as shield, and absorb elements, which makes it a high risk, high reward maneuver in the first place.
Every spell, cantrip or leveled, has a description. That description is, simply put, the effect of the spell - that's why it's called the description, it describes the effect. This is the general 5e spellcasting rule, with no exceptions to my knowledge.
The description/spell effect of Booming Blade allows you to make a melee weapon attack against a creature. You use the Cast a Spell action, as described in PHB, and produce its effect. The effect of both SCAG cantrips right now (pre-Tasha) VERY CLEARLY point to the fact that the target is the creature getting attacked by your melee weapon attack, which is part of the spell's effect. This is backed by the core PHB Spellcasting rule about targets, which can be creatures, objects or points in space (intersections on the grid).
The target of the SCAG cantrips is not the weapon, like some people claim. The weapon is merely a spellcasting component, that's completely different. It's also not the air/space/booming energy around the creature you attack with Booming Blade, that's merely another effect of the spell. I've seen some people claim that as well in other places, forums, videos etc... I don't understand why, but ppl tend to interpret rules WILDLY differently.
Thus, Proxy's claims and interpretations are simply wrong, no other way to put it. Everyone else who argued the opposite is right, correct or whatever term you may want to apply to describe it. I have nothing against or for anybody in this discussion, just dropping in late to clarify things for people that might not understand the rule nuances.
Post-Tasha, the target of SCAG cantrips VERY CLEARLY will no longer be the targets of your weapon attacks, because again, referring back to the core spellcasting rules of 5e explained in PHB, if the range of the spell is Self, that means the only possible target of the spell is Self as well.
Problems and issues with the targeting rules of 5e do happen though. Unlike the SCAG cantrips, which are fairly straightforward with regards to said rules, it's not always clear what/who the targets of some spells are. For example, 2 of the more problematic 5e spells are Armor of Agathys and Dragon's Breath. Whenever I or someone I play with uses that spell, it produces confusion and arguments at the table, because it's not exactly clear who/what the targets of those spells are. But, that's when the DM steps in and makes a call, as it should be.
How is Armor of Agathys misconstrued? It has a range of self, says that it gives you temp hp and if people hit you they take damage. The only way I could see it being a bit iffy is if a creature hits you and takes 4 if your agathys temp hp, the originator of the attack takes 5 hp. Then the next thing that hits you, regardless of how much damage it deals, still takes 5 damage as well and then bleeds through to normal hp.
How is Armor of Agathys misconstrued? It has a range of self, says that it gives you temp hp and if people hit you they take damage. The only way I could see it being a bit iffy is if a creature hits you and takes 4 if your agathys temp hp, the originator of the attack takes 5 hp. Then the next thing that hits you, regardless of how much damage it deals, still takes 5 damage as well and then bleeds through to normal hp.
I don't remember the details, but at some point last year in one very high level game, we argued for an hour whether the creature that takes the cold damage from Armor of Agathys is the target of the spell. I think it was in relation to Find Steed spell iirc and I ruled that it doesn't transfer onto the steed, because it can and does affect both you and your attacker. Kind of along the lines of Crown of Stars spell, which also has a range of Self, but that one is way more obvious in terms of that it doesn't just target you, its effect is an exception that targets other creatures as well. All the Paladin smite spells also work like that - range Self, so general rule would indicate the only valid target is Self too, but the spell effects themselves very clearly create specific exceptions that override that general rule.
I can't believe that WOTC would screw up BB and GFB after all this time. How many errata have been introduced in the lifetime of these cantrips. Warcaster just got hot really hard with the nerf bat with these changes. Yet another reason that Tasha's won't be at my table.
Not worth a listen, when the plain RAW of Section 10 states in no uncertain terms that the target OF THE SPELL must be within the spells range. Any analysis that contradicts that is wrong, until and unless that sentence is errata’d.
That is not to say that the target of the spells magical effect is always the target of the spell. Goodberry is as good an example as any: target of the spell is your own hand, summoning berries. But the spell creates a separate magical effect (berries), that in turn can effect (perhaps even “target,” if you care to use that word) other creatures eating them. But that doesn’t mean they’re the target of “the spell” itself.
I don't know why we are vigorously debating the finer points of a spell errata when we don't actually have the text of that errata available, but I'd just like to come in to help people (or confuse further) about spell targets.
These rules don't make a lot of consistent sense around spell targets, and I think it can be helpful to split the concept into two separate definitions: "THE target" of a spell, and "A target" of a spell.
Every spell has one or more specific targets mentioned in their description, which are one or more creatures, objects or points in space that must be selected during targeting in order for the spell to find the exact location for its effects to be applied. We can call that concept "THE target(s)" of the spell. For Fireball, THE target is a point in space within range (from which the explosion expands). Magic missile chooses one or more creatures as THE target. For BB pre-tasha, THE target is a single creature in range of both the spell and your melee weapon.
Many spells can then affect objects and creatures that were not originally THE target of that spell. When a Fireball explodes, all creatures and flammable objects in the area become affected - they each become "A target" of your Fireball spell. Someone who eats your goodberries could be considered a target, or someone who walks into your Wall of Fire.
Unhelpfully, some rules rely on one use of the word "target", while others could cover both meanings or are unclear. Deciding if a spell can be twinned relies on the second meaning (apparently). The edge cases like creatures damaged by Armor of Agathys or Dragon Breath will forever cause headaches, though I would always lean towards those creatures becoming a target of that spell if a direct causal link can be drawn between the damage and the spell.
I don't know how BB will function with a range of self, but we must assume that THE target creature becomes yourself, and then some unlucky enemy may subsequently become A target. This will undoubtedly affect the feats and metamagic options, but until we see the text, further discussion seems a bit pointless.
A spell which has a listed range, be it Self or a distance of feet, followed by a parenthetical area of effect uses the "target" as a point of origin. A spell without any such parenthetical targets only that creature. Meaning any spell with a range of Self and no parenthetical targets only the caster. (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/693202352296189952?lang=en)
Armor of Agathys would then be duplicated on a mount summoned via Find Steed. So would Shield of Faith if cast on themself, [Tooltip Not Found], and Divine Favor and all of the paladin's smite spells; though the mount may not be able to use them because of how mounted combat works.
Spells with a range of self, fall into two categories as detailed in the Basic Rules for Range.
1. Spells where you are the target
2. Spells where you are the origin.
The fact that the Basic Rules calls these out as different types of spells, implies that spells where you are the origin, are spells where you are not the target. (Whom presumably would be whoever the spell actually hits). I made a more detailed post on this here.
Spells that call for a attack roll, that being a spell melee attack, spell ranged attack, ranged attack, or melee attack, all follow the general rule of how to make a attack detailed here.
The first step, is to "Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location." Therefore, the target of all spells with a attack roll is the creature, object, or location that is targeted. Several spells also add onto this, a specific rule to override this general rule.
Look to Ray of Frost, which calls out that it "streaks toward a creature within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. " (Emphasis mine). This adds a specific rule that you must select a creature within range, and that creature becomes the target. This is a specific rule to override the general rule that you can target a creature, object, or location. In other words it's to prevent you from Ray of Frost a wall of ice, because WOTC thought that was silly.
Edit: Fixed tooltip, I wrote Ray of Frosting rather than Ray of Frost, which is a completely different spell lol.
Spells with a range of self, fall into two categories as detailed in the Basic Rules for Range.
1. Spells where you are the target
2. Spells where you are the origin.
The fact that the Basic Rules calls these out as different types of spells, implies that spells where you are the origin, are spells where you are not the target. (Whom presumably would be whoever the spell actually hits).
A spell with range of self can have one of two chosen targets:
1. A creature (yourself), or
2. The point in space that you occupy.
The rules you linked to for Range indicate that "the target" of the spell must be within the range, so only you and your point in space satisfy that. Cone of Cold targets that location or you the creature as its point of expansion. That point (or you) is "the target" of the spell for many rule interactions. All creatures within the area of affect (including yourself if you choose) then become affected by the spell and they are each "a target" of that spell, for some other rule interactions.
This is an example of a spell where there is both a distinct concept of "the target" of the spell being a point, but many creatures being "a target" of the spell or of its effects.
This was mostly to clarify what Jounichi1983 was saying with spells such as Thunderwave which have a range of Self yet does not target "The point in space that you occupy."' These spells do have a range and also have a range of self, for example Thunderwave is Self (15 ft Cube). although it seems like booming blade is just going to be Self, not Self (5 ft).
So this part is not important to the original question, just things most of us were discussing.
For the original question, I agree with RegentCorreon. "I don't know how BB will function with a range of self, but we must assume that THE target creature becomes yourself, and then some unlucky enemy may subsequently become A target."
P.S. I am totally making a HB Ray of Frosting now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
This was mostly to clarify what Jounichi1983 was saying with spells such as Thunderwave which have a range of Self yet does not target "The point in space that you occupy."' These spells do have a range and also have a range of self, for example Thunderwave is Self (15 ft Cube). although it seems like booming blade is just going to be Self, not Self (5 ft).
So this part is not important to the original question, just things most of us were discussing.
For the original question, I agree with RegentCorreon. "I don't know how BB will function with a range of self, but we must assume that THE target creature becomes yourself, and then some unlucky enemy may subsequently become A target."
P.S. I am totally making a HB Ray of Frosting now.
Tangent: the next Acquisitions, Inc book will have a cooking/baking theme and Ray of Frosting will be one of the spells.
For the original question, I agree with RegentCorreon. "I don't know how BB will function with a range of self, but we must assume that THE target creature becomes yourself, and then some unlucky enemy may subsequently become A target."
Assuming the leak is true, we can make a few safe assumptions.
A range of "Self" instead of "5 ft" should mean the cantrip(s) will work beyond just adjacent squares. Bugbears with their 10 ft reach and any weapons with the reach property should not need the Spell Sniper feat to increase the range of the spell. This is a boon to certain builds. That said, we don't know the precise language of the spell description, meaning we don't know if anything else is changing.
A target of "Self" instead of "5 ft" means the spell no longer is compatible with the War Caster feat. While this is a slight bummer, it was also pure cheese that a connecting hit would deal the full damage every time. On balance, this is probably a good thing. And there are plenty of other cantrips, and even slotted spells, which can work with the feat.
A target of "Self" instead of "5 ft" means it can be shared, provided certain spells or features allow for it.
Anyone with Find Steed can share the spell with their mount while riding the mount. However, according to the mounted combat rules, the mount may not be allowed to make an attack. We'll need to wait for precise wording and/or sage advice.
A beast master ranger of 15th level or higher can also share the spell with their beast/primal companion. Whether this is better than just attacking twice I can't say; as I haven't done the math.
Assuming the range is "Self (5 ft)" means that none of the above applies. No Spell Sniper or Warcaster. No sharing of spells.
Why would "Self (5 ft)" mean no sharing? I don't know that that would be enough to close the book on whether "the target" of the spell is just the caster, or the caster + the enemy, though it certainly opens the possibility. I think it would be odd (and novel) for a spell to have two simultaneous targets, but have a completely different effect on one (your sword is empowered) than another (you are enveloped in booming energy and take damage). The split between "spell target" vs. "effect target" feels much cleaner to me than opening the door to both being spell targets, but being effected by entirely different parts of the spell, even with a spell range that would allow it. In other words, a self-targeting Ice Knife situation.
Why would "Self (5 ft)" mean no sharing? I don't know that that would be enough to close the book on whether "the target" of the spell is just the caster, or the caster + the enemy, though it certainly opens the possibility. I think it would be odd (and novel) for a spell to have two simultaneous targets, but have a completely different effect on one (your sword is empowered) than another (you are enveloped in booming energy and take damage). The split between "spell target" vs. "effect target" feels much cleaner to me than opening the door to both being spell targets, but being effected by entirely different parts of the spell, even with a spell range that would allow it. In other words, a self-targeting Ice Knife situation.
A spell with a range of "Self (5 ft)" means the caster serves as the point of origin, not that they're the target of the spell.
This was mostly to clarify what Jounichi1983 was saying with spells such as Thunderwave which have a range of Self yet does not target "The point in space that you occupy."' These spells do have a range and also have a range of self, for example Thunderwave is Self (15 ft Cube). although it seems like booming blade is just going to be Self, not Self (5 ft).
So this part is not important to the original question, just things most of us were discussing.
For the original question, I agree with RegentCorreon. "I don't know how BB will function with a range of self, but we must assume that THE target creature becomes yourself, and then some unlucky enemy may subsequently become A target."
P.S. I am totally making a HB Ray of Frosting now.
Tangent: the next Acquisitions, Inc book will have a cooking/baking theme and Ray of Frosting will be one of the spells.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread.
Tangent: Too late I've already done it, the second frosting spell in the entire HB magical spells section.
Back onto the actual thread, Jounichi is correct as expected. The idea of spreading a booming blade to your beast is absolutely amazing, enough to consider a wizard dip. Although a EK dip or something along those lines would probably make more sense. You could booming blade as your action, have your beast booming blade as well, and due to the other changes in Tasha's, your beast could then multiattack as their bonus action.
It's basically just Extra Attack but both attacks do +2d8 damage (3d8 at 17th level), that's a insane boost.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
This was mostly to clarify what Jounichi1983 was saying with spells such as Thunderwave which have a range of Self yet does not target "The point in space that you occupy."' These spells do have a range and also have a range of self, for example Thunderwave is Self (15 ft Cube). although it seems like booming blade is just going to be Self, not Self (5 ft).
So this part is not important to the original question, just things most of us were discussing.
For the original question, I agree with RegentCorreon. "I don't know how BB will function with a range of self, but we must assume that THE target creature becomes yourself, and then some unlucky enemy may subsequently become A target."
P.S. I am totally making a HB Ray of Frosting now.
Tangent: the next Acquisitions, Inc book will have a cooking/baking theme and Ray of Frosting will be one of the spells.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread.
Tangent: Too late I've already done it, the second frosting spell in the entire HB magical spells section.
Back onto the actual thread, Jounichi is correct as expected. The idea of spreading a booming blade to your beast is absolutely amazing, enough to consider a wizard dip. Although a EK dip or something along those lines would probably make more sense. You could booming blade as your action, have your beast booming blade as well, and due to the other changes in Tasha's, your beast could then multiattack as their bonus action.
It's basically just Extra Attack but both attacks do +2d8 damage (3d8 at 17th level), that's a insane boost.
We don't yet know if the beast companion could, theoretically, use Multiattack twice. That would be, potentially, 5 attacks in one turn. It's more likely any Bonus Action attack would be a single attack.
I am inclined to think the new version will be simpler. Obviously we haven't seen the wording but I think it should work with reach weapons without needing distant spell which is good. As for twinning the cantrip I can think of much better ways to use sourcery points. Try twinning ice knife for example which very clearly only has one target and doesn't have a range of self but can nevertheless injure multiple creatures if they are nicely bunched :)
When you Cast a Spell that Targets only one creature and doesn’t have a range of self, you can spend a number of sorcery points equal to the spell’s level to target a second creature in range with the same spell (1 sorcery point if the spell is a cantrip).
To be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level. For example, Magic Missile and Scorching Ray aren’t eligible, but Ray of Frost is.
I am inclined to think the new version will be simpler. Obviously we haven't seen the wording but I think it should work with reach weapons without needing distant spell which is good. As for twinning the cantrip I can think of much better ways to use sourcery points. Try twinning ice knife for example which very clearly only has one target and doesn't have a range of self but can nevertheless injure multiple creatures if they are nicely bunched :)
When you Cast a Spell that Targets only one creature and doesn’t have a range of self, you can spend a number of sorcery points equal to the spell’s level to target a second creature in range with the same spell (1 sorcery point if the spell is a cantrip).
To be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level. For example, Magic Missile and Scorching Ray aren’t eligible, but Ray of Frost is.
Ice Knife
That is at least a dubious interpretation of an entirely different different question than the one being discussed here.
The question being discussed is “how bout dat Booming Blade rewrite?” So... nah, it’s the same question. If BB is truly a self target spell now, then yes, it’s twinability will be EXACTLY the same as Ice Knife, as both will be spells that target one creature, but then hurt another that is not explicitly called a target.
Firstly, the spell has a range, and clearly has a creature as its target... your argument would imply the target is the weapon, which is absurd for many reasons.
Secondly, the spell range of 5ft matters tremendously when trying to use a weapon with reach. For example: using a reach weapon with with warcaster and polearm master feats allowing you to cast a spell, for which, based on the current wording BB would qualify, as an AoO. However, you couldn't hit the target with BB without spell sniper to increase its range to match the reach of your weapon. Which, by the way, is a long way around to achieve something that the sentinel feat already achieves in one OP feat, but this way is thematically way cooler, and offers a reasonably reliable way of setting off the BB proc, because let's face it, most GMs metagame the shit out of BB anyways.
This is why Proxy is wrong, and also why the changing of the range to self is so problematic without some other errata we are unaware of to address this issue.
It doesn't seem logical to nerf this, even with the huge amount of possible damage as an AoO, simply because, unlike how you said it is resource free.. it clearly isn't, requiring 2-3 feats to accomplish. I'd say thats pretty resource prohibitive. Not to mention, for a Caster, this uses up your reaction which then precludes things such as shield, and absorb elements, which makes it a high risk, high reward maneuver in the first place.
Every spell, cantrip or leveled, has a description. That description is, simply put, the effect of the spell - that's why it's called the description, it describes the effect. This is the general 5e spellcasting rule, with no exceptions to my knowledge.
The description/spell effect of Booming Blade allows you to make a melee weapon attack against a creature. You use the Cast a Spell action, as described in PHB, and produce its effect. The effect of both SCAG cantrips right now (pre-Tasha) VERY CLEARLY point to the fact that the target is the creature getting attacked by your melee weapon attack, which is part of the spell's effect. This is backed by the core PHB Spellcasting rule about targets, which can be creatures, objects or points in space (intersections on the grid).
The target of the SCAG cantrips is not the weapon, like some people claim. The weapon is merely a spellcasting component, that's completely different. It's also not the air/space/booming energy around the creature you attack with Booming Blade, that's merely another effect of the spell. I've seen some people claim that as well in other places, forums, videos etc... I don't understand why, but ppl tend to interpret rules WILDLY differently.
Thus, Proxy's claims and interpretations are simply wrong, no other way to put it. Everyone else who argued the opposite is right, correct or whatever term you may want to apply to describe it. I have nothing against or for anybody in this discussion, just dropping in late to clarify things for people that might not understand the rule nuances.
Post-Tasha, the target of SCAG cantrips VERY CLEARLY will no longer be the targets of your weapon attacks, because again, referring back to the core spellcasting rules of 5e explained in PHB, if the range of the spell is Self, that means the only possible target of the spell is Self as well.
Problems and issues with the targeting rules of 5e do happen though. Unlike the SCAG cantrips, which are fairly straightforward with regards to said rules, it's not always clear what/who the targets of some spells are. For example, 2 of the more problematic 5e spells are Armor of Agathys and Dragon's Breath. Whenever I or someone I play with uses that spell, it produces confusion and arguments at the table, because it's not exactly clear who/what the targets of those spells are. But, that's when the DM steps in and makes a call, as it should be.
I sometimes create 5e character videos on YouTube, check them out.
How is Armor of Agathys misconstrued? It has a range of self, says that it gives you temp hp and if people hit you they take damage. The only way I could see it being a bit iffy is if a creature hits you and takes 4 if your agathys temp hp, the originator of the attack takes 5 hp. Then the next thing that hits you, regardless of how much damage it deals, still takes 5 damage as well and then bleeds through to normal hp.
I don't remember the details, but at some point last year in one very high level game, we argued for an hour whether the creature that takes the cold damage from Armor of Agathys is the target of the spell. I think it was in relation to Find Steed spell iirc and I ruled that it doesn't transfer onto the steed, because it can and does affect both you and your attacker. Kind of along the lines of Crown of Stars spell, which also has a range of Self, but that one is way more obvious in terms of that it doesn't just target you, its effect is an exception that targets other creatures as well. All the Paladin smite spells also work like that - range Self, so general rule would indicate the only valid target is Self too, but the spell effects themselves very clearly create specific exceptions that override that general rule.
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/wolfgang-baur-girl-scouts-midgard this podcast goes into the nitty-gritty about Self range, spell targeting and all that. You can in fact more than one target, even if the range of the spell is Self. Worth a listen.
I sometimes create 5e character videos on YouTube, check them out.
I can't believe that WOTC would screw up BB and GFB after all this time. How many errata have been introduced in the lifetime of these cantrips. Warcaster just got hot really hard with the nerf bat with these changes. Yet another reason that Tasha's won't be at my table.
Not worth a listen, when the plain RAW of Section 10 states in no uncertain terms that the target OF THE SPELL must be within the spells range. Any analysis that contradicts that is wrong, until and unless that sentence is errata’d.
That is not to say that the target of the spells magical effect is always the target of the spell. Goodberry is as good an example as any: target of the spell is your own hand, summoning berries. But the spell creates a separate magical effect (berries), that in turn can effect (perhaps even “target,” if you care to use that word) other creatures eating them. But that doesn’t mean they’re the target of “the spell” itself.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I don't know why we are vigorously debating the finer points of a spell errata when we don't actually have the text of that errata available, but I'd just like to come in to help people (or confuse further) about spell targets.
These rules don't make a lot of consistent sense around spell targets, and I think it can be helpful to split the concept into two separate definitions: "THE target" of a spell, and "A target" of a spell.
Every spell has one or more specific targets mentioned in their description, which are one or more creatures, objects or points in space that must be selected during targeting in order for the spell to find the exact location for its effects to be applied. We can call that concept "THE target(s)" of the spell. For Fireball, THE target is a point in space within range (from which the explosion expands). Magic missile chooses one or more creatures as THE target. For BB pre-tasha, THE target is a single creature in range of both the spell and your melee weapon.
Many spells can then affect objects and creatures that were not originally THE target of that spell. When a Fireball explodes, all creatures and flammable objects in the area become affected - they each become "A target" of your Fireball spell. Someone who eats your goodberries could be considered a target, or someone who walks into your Wall of Fire.
Unhelpfully, some rules rely on one use of the word "target", while others could cover both meanings or are unclear. Deciding if a spell can be twinned relies on the second meaning (apparently). The edge cases like creatures damaged by Armor of Agathys or Dragon Breath will forever cause headaches, though I would always lean towards those creatures becoming a target of that spell if a direct causal link can be drawn between the damage and the spell.
I don't know how BB will function with a range of self, but we must assume that THE target creature becomes yourself, and then some unlucky enemy may subsequently become A target. This will undoubtedly affect the feats and metamagic options, but until we see the text, further discussion seems a bit pointless.
A spell which has a listed range, be it Self or a distance of feet, followed by a parenthetical area of effect uses the "target" as a point of origin. A spell without any such parenthetical targets only that creature. Meaning any spell with a range of Self and no parenthetical targets only the caster. (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/693202352296189952?lang=en)
Armor of Agathys would then be duplicated on a mount summoned via Find Steed. So would Shield of Faith if cast on themself, [Tooltip Not Found], and Divine Favor and all of the paladin's smite spells; though the mount may not be able to use them because of how mounted combat works.
Some clarifications,
Spells with a range of self, fall into two categories as detailed in the Basic Rules for Range.
1. Spells where you are the target
2. Spells where you are the origin.
The fact that the Basic Rules calls these out as different types of spells, implies that spells where you are the origin, are spells where you are not the target. (Whom presumably would be whoever the spell actually hits). I made a more detailed post on this here.
Spells that call for a attack roll, that being a spell melee attack, spell ranged attack, ranged attack, or melee attack, all follow the general rule of how to make a attack detailed here.
The first step, is to "Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location." Therefore, the target of all spells with a attack roll is the creature, object, or location that is targeted. Several spells also add onto this, a specific rule to override this general rule.
Look to Ray of Frost, which calls out that it "streaks toward a creature within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. " (Emphasis mine). This adds a specific rule that you must select a creature within range, and that creature becomes the target. This is a specific rule to override the general rule that you can target a creature, object, or location. In other words it's to prevent you from Ray of Frost a wall of ice, because WOTC thought that was silly.
Edit: Fixed tooltip, I wrote Ray of Frosting rather than Ray of Frost, which is a completely different spell lol.
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.
A spell with range of self can have one of two chosen targets:
1. A creature (yourself), or
2. The point in space that you occupy.
The rules you linked to for Range indicate that "the target" of the spell must be within the range, so only you and your point in space satisfy that. Cone of Cold targets that location or you the creature as its point of expansion. That point (or you) is "the target" of the spell for many rule interactions. All creatures within the area of affect (including yourself if you choose) then become affected by the spell and they are each "a target" of that spell, for some other rule interactions.
This is an example of a spell where there is both a distinct concept of "the target" of the spell being a point, but many creatures being "a target" of the spell or of its effects.
P.S. mmmm, Ray of Frosting...
This was mostly to clarify what Jounichi1983 was saying with spells such as Thunderwave which have a range of Self yet does not target "The point in space that you occupy."' These spells do have a range and also have a range of self, for example Thunderwave is Self (15 ft Cube). although it seems like booming blade is just going to be Self, not Self (5 ft).
So this part is not important to the original question, just things most of us were discussing.
For the original question, I agree with RegentCorreon. "I don't know how BB will function with a range of self, but we must assume that THE target creature becomes yourself, and then some unlucky enemy may subsequently become A target."
P.S. I am totally making a HB Ray of Frosting now.
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.
Tangent: the next Acquisitions, Inc book will have a cooking/baking theme and Ray of Frosting will be one of the spells.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread.
Assuming the leak is true, we can make a few safe assumptions.
Why would "Self (5 ft)" mean no sharing? I don't know that that would be enough to close the book on whether "the target" of the spell is just the caster, or the caster + the enemy, though it certainly opens the possibility. I think it would be odd (and novel) for a spell to have two simultaneous targets, but have a completely different effect on one (your sword is empowered) than another (you are enveloped in booming energy and take damage). The split between "spell target" vs. "effect target" feels much cleaner to me than opening the door to both being spell targets, but being effected by entirely different parts of the spell, even with a spell range that would allow it. In other words, a self-targeting Ice Knife situation.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
A spell with a range of "Self (5 ft)" means the caster serves as the point of origin, not that they're the target of the spell.
Tangent: Too late I've already done it, the second frosting spell in the entire HB magical spells section.
Back onto the actual thread, Jounichi is correct as expected. The idea of spreading a booming blade to your beast is absolutely amazing, enough to consider a wizard dip. Although a EK dip or something along those lines would probably make more sense. You could booming blade as your action, have your beast booming blade as well, and due to the other changes in Tasha's, your beast could then multiattack as their bonus action.
It's basically just Extra Attack but both attacks do +2d8 damage (3d8 at 17th level), that's a insane boost.
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.
We don't yet know if the beast companion could, theoretically, use Multiattack twice. That would be, potentially, 5 attacks in one turn. It's more likely any Bonus Action attack would be a single attack.
I am inclined to think the new version will be simpler. Obviously we haven't seen the wording but I think it should work with reach weapons without needing distant spell which is good. As for twinning the cantrip I can think of much better ways to use sourcery points. Try twinning ice knife for example which very clearly only has one target and doesn't have a range of self but can nevertheless injure multiple creatures if they are nicely bunched :)
Twinned Spell
When you Cast a Spell that Targets only one creature and doesn’t have a range of self, you can spend a number of sorcery points equal to the spell’s level to target a second creature in range with the same spell (1 sorcery point if the spell is a cantrip).
To be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level. For example, Magic Missile and Scorching Ray aren’t eligible, but Ray of Frost is.
Ice Knife
#Opendnd
That is at least a dubious interpretation of an entirely different different question than the one being discussed here.
The question being discussed is “how bout dat Booming Blade rewrite?” So... nah, it’s the same question. If BB is truly a self target spell now, then yes, it’s twinability will be EXACTLY the same as Ice Knife, as both will be spells that target one creature, but then hurt another that is not explicitly called a target.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.