The only thing that's ludicrous is that you believe those spells can't be affected by Counterspell? What, "on God's green Earth", makes you think that?
In case I wasn't clear, I'm not suggesting they can't be countered when cast. Each of them is cast on one round, but then continues to allow you to target creatures with attacks/effects on subsequent rounds. If you miss your opportunity to Counterspell the spell when it is cast on its target, you don't get another chance to Counterspell its subsequent secondary magical effects when those magical effects target creatures. The spell is one thing with one target (either yourself, or your weapon), the magical effect is another thing with its own targets (enemies).
But, as Saga indicated, you don't really provide any proof that your way has to be the way the text is interpreted. "A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic" could certainly be interpreted that targets are the creatures affected by the spell's magic. Again, no distinction is made between primary and secondary effects of spells; targets are affected by the spell's magic - that would seem to mean all of its effects. There is enough ambiguity in the rule that you certainly could rule either way. That is, in fact, why the SAC entry was issued. Whether you choose to ignore that advice is up to you, but it is not up to you whether anyone else does when it is consistent with some reading of the rules.
Sure, there's room for interpretation here, and disagreement about how we want to phrase what's actually going on when we identify targets. But again, it 100%, absolutely, without a doubt, cannot be "all creatures affected by the spell's magic." Once again, Grease or anything similar shows that to be false on its face, so you're going to have to dive into a more complicated analysis no matter what.
The fact that spells don't generally use the term "secondary targets" is exactly why I don't agree that secondary targets exist as spell targets. The general guideance is, the target of the spell is one or more creatures, objects, or points that the spell "requires you to pick." What are you required to "pick" for Ice Knife? "One creature within range." Boom, that's "the target." The spell has ample opportunity to use "Targets within 5 feet..." language for the second sentence, to create a Fireball situation with two specific sets of targets (Fireball targets "a point you choose within range" and also "each creature in a 20-foot radius sphere centered on that point," because it calls those other creatures "targets")... but it doesn't do so. So, we're left following Chapter 10: the creatures, objects, or points that the spell "requires you to pick."
I think you're focused too much on the flavor text of certain spells and not enough on the actual RAW spell description. Given the plain-language reading of the text, the intent should be obvious; despite your protestations. Wizards of the Coast didn't think it needed more clarification because it shouldn't need more. You'd have to actively look for ways to game the system, like you have been, quibbling over language, to try and finagle something that clearly wasn't intended.
...
I need to call this out in particular: among all the bad takes I hear on this subject, calling spell descriptions "flavor text" stands out head and shoulders as the worst and least justifiable reason to ignore the plain language of a spell. Ice Knife is written by the same team, with the same resources, as Chapter 10 and every other rule. If we trust that Chapter 10 means what it says it means, then we must trust that the spell description of Ice Knife also means what it says it means. There's no "Ignore this part, it's flavor text" disclaimer in Ice Knife or Chapter 10 or anywhere else, the spell description is what it is. And Ice Knife describes quite plainly and in no uncertain terms that it has one "the target," and that the other creatures it effects are not ever called "the targets."
So Burning Handsdoes require you to "hold your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread" in order to cast it? Y'know... if it's not "flavor text".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Yes. Also, it's a "thin sheet" (a flat 2D cone), not a 3D cone, for the same reason :)
There’s no such thing as a “flat 2D cone.” The flames may be a thin sheet, but the effect is a cone. Nowhere does it say the thin sheet is the area of effect. You’re not even holding to your own premises properly!
You are required to pick one of the creatures affected by one of the effects of ice knife and thereby choose the creatures that are within 5' of that creature. They are also chosen when the other target of the spell is chosen.
... in the same way that choosing a point in space chooses the targets of fireball.
You are required to pick one of the creatures affected by one of the effects of ice knife and thereby choose the creatures that are within 5' of that creature. They are also chosen when the other target of the spell is chosen.
No they aren't. It's "each creature" within 5 feet, not "creatures you choose" within 5 feet, nor is there any choice as to whether or not the projectile explodes, nor is there any choice to select a strategically placed square instead of a creature. Literally the only choice you are given is the single creature that you throw the spell at, which helpfully the spell also explicitly calls "the target" in no uncertain terms.
The plain language of Ice Knife is so obviously single-target, that the only possible way to land to a different conclusion is to start backwards from your desired conclusion (the target of a spell is all creatures effected by the spell), and to then ignore that your conclusion contradicts both Chapter 10 (the target is what you choose) and the spell itself (you choose one creature as a target). It's borderline bad faith, I'm sorry.
Apparently you didn't understand what I meant. Choosing where you place the spell in effect chooses what creatures are affected. You choose where to place the spell by choosing one of the affected creatures, but that in effect chooses what other creatures are within 5' of the original creature.
The plain language of ice knife obviously states that one target gets treated differently than the other creatures affected by the spell. But nothing in the spell or chapter 10 states that those other creatures affected by the spell are not (also) targets of the spell, does it?
You are required to pick one of the creatures affected by one of the effects of ice knife and thereby choose the creatures that are within 5' of that creature. They are also chosen when the other target of the spell is chosen.
No they aren't. It's "each creature" within 5 feet, not "creatures you choose" within 5 feet, nor is there any choice as to whether or not the projectile explodes, nor is there any choice to select a strategically placed square instead of a creature. Literally the only choice you are given is the single creature that you throw the spell at, which helpfully the spell also explicitly calls "the target" in no uncertain terms.
The plain language of Ice Knife is so obviously single-target, that the only possible way to land to a different conclusion is to start backwards from your desired conclusion (the target of a spell is all creatures effected by the spell), and to then ignore that your conclusion contradicts both Chapter 10 (the target is what you choose) and the spell itself (you choose one creature as a target). It's borderline bad faith, I'm sorry.
Except that it's not "obviously single-target" because it can affect multiple targets. And they're targets because they're affected by the spell. As per the definition of the word that you keep ignoring.
Nothing in Chapter 10 invites us to define target as "creature affected by the spell." Nothing elsewhere in the PHB, DMG, or MM invites us to definte target as "creature affected by the spell." Nothing in Merriam Webster defines target as "a creature affected by the spell" (or anything similar but less contextual). I am unpertrubed by the fact that my interpretation of Ice Knife fails to satisfy that definition, because that is not the meaning of "target" in 5E and it is obvious that it isn't, otherwise spells like Grease or Fog Cloud would target areas instead of creatures creatures instead of areas, and that is frankly ridiculous.
Again, you all are bad-faith arguing backwards from a conclusion that fails on its own merits when applied to any number of other spells other than Ice Knife. Ice Knife presents no problem to Chapter 10, it plays quite nicely with the direction that the target is the creatures, areas, or points that you "choose." I decline to follow you down your slippery slope to an unwritten alternative rule that will cause you more problems than it solves, I'm content to remain in the realm of RAW.
Nothing in Chapter 10 invites us to define target as "creature affected by the spell." Nothing elsewhere in the PHB, DMG, or MM invites us to definte target as "creature affected by the spell." Nothing in Merriam Webster defines target as "a creature affected by the spell" (or anything similar but less contextual). I am unpertrubed by the fact that my interpretation of Ice Knife fails to satisfy that definition, because that is not the meaning of "target" in 5E and it is obvious that it isn't, otherwise spells like Grease or Fog Cloud would target areas instead of creatures, and that is frankly ridiculous.
Again, you all are bad-faith arguing backwards from a conclusion that fails on its own merits when applied to any other spell other than Ice Knife. Ice Knife presents no problem to Chapter 10, it plays quite nicely with the direction that the target is the creatures, areas, or points that you "choose." I decline to follow you down your slippery slope to an unwritten alternative rule that will cause you more problems than it solves, I'm content to remain in the realm of RAW.
You say we're arguing in bad faith, yet we can quote the rules makers on their intent.
The Chicken_Champ doth protest too much, methinks.
Bad faith arguments start from the supposition. You are arguing that a spell that clearly can hit many creatures should be allowed to be affected by a feature that is clearly intended to only work on spells that hit one creature on technicalities of language.
The only thing that's ludicrous is that you believe those spells can't be affected by Counterspell? What, "on God's green Earth", makes you think that?
I think what they are suggesting, which is a correct suggestion mind you in pieces; The casting of those spells can absolutely be counterspelled. Once the cast has completed though, the individual attacks made with such things cannot be counterspelled. Now the spell is cast, and is considered a magical effect, which could be dispelled instead.
Bad faith arguments start from the supposition. You are arguing that a spell that clearly can hit many creatures should be allowed to be affected by a feature that is clearly intended to only work on spells that hit one creature on technicalities of language.
Welcome to D&D Rules Lawyering, 5th Edition version? This isn't a new concept or reality. Honestly, I agree with a lot of the points made by both sides. To me, as a player/DM, when the person who created the intent behind the rules(Crawford) speaks out and says hey, this isn't possible? I'll take that as gospel. However, that doesn't change the actual written rules and how they could possibly be interpreted by individuals, and the DMG clearly states "Its your table, run it however you want."
All effected by Fireball are called targets, and thus are targets. All secondary creatures effected by Ice Knife are explicitly not called targets ("the target and each creature"), and thus are not targets.
...
Can you explain why the creatures affected by Fireball are targets, but those affected by Delayed Blast Fireball (or literally any other AOE damage spell) are not? If it is only the spell description of Fireball that makes those creatures targets then it follows that any AOE damage spell that does not make that specification in fact has no creature targets.
It is worth noting that Fireball never actually says that those creatures are "targets" - quite the opposite. It lays out the conditions that determine which creatures are affected by the spell, and then after that it refers to those creatures using the sentence "a target takes X damage". That is to say that the spell description assumes that you know who it is talking about when it says "a target". It hasn't told you what "a target" means, not has it told you who the targets are. It has only said which creatures are affected and then subsequently referred to creatures affected by the spell as "a target".
I consider this undeniable proof that the books collectively do not use the word "target" in the restrictive way you are arguing, being only the creature/object/point chosen during the targeting of the spell. The word target is also used to mean someone or something directly affected by the spell. This is true because there is the text right there in Fireball, doing that exact thing.
Can you describe to me why creatures hit by a Fireball are targets, but those in a Grease spell when it is cast (or Stinking Cloud, or anything other point-targeting AOE spell) are not? Because the only difference I can see is, Fireball calls those creatures targets, while other spells don’t.
Your suggested takeaway is, “only Fireball is being explicit, but all spells operate like Fireball, even when they don’t say they do.” In so doing, you blatantly disregard the actual language of Chapter 10, in several subsections, relying instead on a general unwritten over-rule that is found nowhere.
My takeaway is that Fireball is a specific exception to the general rule that targets are the points, objects, or creatures you choose. In so doing, I respect the wording of that spell, other spells, and Chapter 10. Only JCs third-party musings are done violence.
It isn’t just that I disagree with you, I literally don’t see the temptation to buy so heavily into an interpretation with no book support that actually CONTRADICTS the language in Chapter 10 and specific spell descriptions (how can Eyebite target an enemy when it’s range is self????). It’s just... a weird position to take, especially since it causes headaches for so many AOE (Grease) and self targeting (Eyebite) spells that operate more cleanly without your houserule.
Who says creatures within the AoE of Grease or Stinking Cloud aren’t targets (aside from you)? Of course they are. The only difference IS that Fireball uses the word and the others don’t. Again, Chapter 10’s rules on targeting are clear enough for most of us that “target” means “anything affected by the spell’s magic.”
This isn’t a super important point, but your theory that Fireball’s wording is a specific exception to some unstated general rule is based on the idea that spell descriptions are all written to a uniform standard of meaning, something we know beyond a shadow of a doubt to be false.
I didn’t say that they were standard, just that Chapter 10 tells us to respect them.
fine, “the target” of Grease is creatures now, great. Now answer Eyebite.
Fact (on phone, can’t quote, but easy to look up on your end): the target of a spell can’t be outside its range.
Fact: Eyebite range is self.
Fact: Eyebite effects another creature the same round it is first cast.
if the target of a spell is any creature the spell effects (or at least, those effected at the time it is cast), then we got a problem partner.
or, we can avoid said problem.... by just not houseruling that unwritten rule in the first place???
ETA: Yes, Eyebite throws around some bizarre “target” references that suggest that creatures are targeted... by the secondary effect, not the spell itself. It’s hair splitting, but necessary if you don’t want to be forced to take a sharpie to Chapter 10 and accept that either the Chapter or the spell is hopelessly compromised :/
Fact: Twin spell calls out spells with range of self as being ineligible.
Fact: Eyebite is irrelevant to the current discussion.
Fact: you chose an example spell that actually uses the word target and try to describe that a target is something other than what the words of your example spell say. that is self-evidently false.
It's not irrelevant when you're arguing for a rule to be recognized in this context, which will cause problems in every other context. Eyebite shows rather clearly that "the target of a spell is any creature the spell effects" is false.
Are you instead agreeing that that is not an (unwritten) rule about targets, but rather that Twinned Spell has unwritten text that says "no spell which effects more than one creature may be Twinned"? That is equally unsupported by the RAW, but at least limits its damage to the context of a single class, rather than corrupting every published spell for everyone?
It isn’t just that I disagree with you, I literally don’t see the temptation to buy so heavily into an interpretation with no book support that actually CONTRADICTS the language in Chapter 10 and specific spell descriptions (how can Eyebite target an enemy when it’s range is self????). It’s just... a weird position to take, especially since it causes headaches for so many AOE (Grease) and self targeting (Eyebite) spells that operate more cleanly without your houserule.
What house rule would that be?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In case I wasn't clear, I'm not suggesting they can't be countered when cast. Each of them is cast on one round, but then continues to allow you to target creatures with attacks/effects on subsequent rounds. If you miss your opportunity to Counterspell the spell when it is cast on its target, you don't get another chance to Counterspell its subsequent secondary magical effects when those magical effects target creatures. The spell is one thing with one target (either yourself, or your weapon), the magical effect is another thing with its own targets (enemies).
Sure, there's room for interpretation here, and disagreement about how we want to phrase what's actually going on when we identify targets. But again, it 100%, absolutely, without a doubt, cannot be "all creatures affected by the spell's magic." Once again, Grease or anything similar shows that to be false on its face, so you're going to have to dive into a more complicated analysis no matter what.
The fact that spells don't generally use the term "secondary targets" is exactly why I don't agree that secondary targets exist as spell targets. The general guideance is, the target of the spell is one or more creatures, objects, or points that the spell "requires you to pick." What are you required to "pick" for Ice Knife? "One creature within range." Boom, that's "the target." The spell has ample opportunity to use "Targets within 5 feet..." language for the second sentence, to create a Fireball situation with two specific sets of targets (Fireball targets "a point you choose within range" and also "each creature in a 20-foot radius sphere centered on that point," because it calls those other creatures "targets")... but it doesn't do so. So, we're left following Chapter 10: the creatures, objects, or points that the spell "requires you to pick."
I need to call this out in particular: among all the bad takes I hear on this subject, calling spell descriptions "flavor text" stands out head and shoulders as the worst and least justifiable reason to ignore the plain language of a spell. Ice Knife is written by the same team, with the same resources, as Chapter 10 and every other rule. If we trust that Chapter 10 means what it says it means, then we must trust that the spell description of Ice Knife also means what it says it means. There's no "Ignore this part, it's flavor text" disclaimer in Ice Knife or Chapter 10 or anywhere else, the spell description is what it is. And Ice Knife describes quite plainly and in no uncertain terms that it has one "the target," and that the other creatures it effects are not ever called "the targets."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
So Burning Hands does require you to "hold your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread" in order to cast it? Y'know... if it's not "flavor text".
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Yes. Also, it's a "thin sheet" (a flat 2D cone), not a 3D cone, for the same reason :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
There’s no such thing as a “flat 2D cone.” The flames may be a thin sheet, but the effect is a cone. Nowhere does it say the thin sheet is the area of effect. You’re not even holding to your own premises properly!
Okay, you talked me into it, 3D cone :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You are required to pick one of the creatures affected by one of the effects of ice knife and thereby choose the creatures that are within 5' of that creature. They are also chosen when the other target of the spell is chosen.
... in the same way that choosing a point in space chooses the targets of fireball.
No they aren't. It's "each creature" within 5 feet, not "creatures you choose" within 5 feet, nor is there any choice as to whether or not the projectile explodes, nor is there any choice to select a strategically placed square instead of a creature. Literally the only choice you are given is the single creature that you throw the spell at, which helpfully the spell also explicitly calls "the target" in no uncertain terms.
The plain language of Ice Knife is so obviously single-target, that the only possible way to land to a different conclusion is to start backwards from your desired conclusion (the target of a spell is all creatures effected by the spell), and to then ignore that your conclusion contradicts both Chapter 10 (the target is what you choose) and the spell itself (you choose one creature as a target). It's borderline bad faith, I'm sorry.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Apparently you didn't understand what I meant. Choosing where you place the spell in effect chooses what creatures are affected. You choose where to place the spell by choosing one of the affected creatures, but that in effect chooses what other creatures are within 5' of the original creature.
The plain language of ice knife obviously states that one target gets treated differently than the other creatures affected by the spell. But nothing in the spell or chapter 10 states that those other creatures affected by the spell are not (also) targets of the spell, does it?
Except that it's not "obviously single-target" because it can affect multiple targets. And they're targets because they're affected by the spell. As per the definition of the word that you keep ignoring.
Nothing in Chapter 10 invites us to define target as "creature affected by the spell." Nothing elsewhere in the PHB, DMG, or MM invites us to definte target as "creature affected by the spell." Nothing in Merriam Webster defines target as "a creature affected by the spell" (or anything similar but less contextual). I am unpertrubed by the fact that my interpretation of Ice Knife fails to satisfy that definition, because that is not the meaning of "target" in 5E and it is obvious that it isn't, otherwise spells like Grease or Fog Cloud would target
areas instead of creaturescreatures instead of areas, and that is frankly ridiculous.Again, you all are bad-faith arguing backwards from a conclusion that fails on its own merits when applied to any number of other spells other than Ice Knife. Ice Knife presents no problem to Chapter 10, it plays quite nicely with the direction that the target is the creatures, areas, or points that you "choose." I decline to follow you down your slippery slope to an unwritten alternative rule that will cause you more problems than it solves, I'm content to remain in the realm of RAW.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You say we're arguing in bad faith, yet we can quote the rules makers on their intent.
The Chicken_Champ doth protest too much, methinks.
Bad faith arguments start from the supposition. You are arguing that a spell that clearly can hit many creatures should be allowed to be affected by a feature that is clearly intended to only work on spells that hit one creature on technicalities of language.
I think what they are suggesting, which is a correct suggestion mind you in pieces; The casting of those spells can absolutely be counterspelled. Once the cast has completed though, the individual attacks made with such things cannot be counterspelled. Now the spell is cast, and is considered a magical effect, which could be dispelled instead.
Welcome to D&D Rules Lawyering, 5th Edition version? This isn't a new concept or reality. Honestly, I agree with a lot of the points made by both sides. To me, as a player/DM, when the person who created the intent behind the rules(Crawford) speaks out and says hey, this isn't possible? I'll take that as gospel. However, that doesn't change the actual written rules and how they could possibly be interpreted by individuals, and the DMG clearly states "Its your table, run it however you want."
Can you explain why the creatures affected by Fireball are targets, but those affected by Delayed Blast Fireball (or literally any other AOE damage spell) are not? If it is only the spell description of Fireball that makes those creatures targets then it follows that any AOE damage spell that does not make that specification in fact has no creature targets.
It is worth noting that Fireball never actually says that those creatures are "targets" - quite the opposite. It lays out the conditions that determine which creatures are affected by the spell, and then after that it refers to those creatures using the sentence "a target takes X damage". That is to say that the spell description assumes that you know who it is talking about when it says "a target". It hasn't told you what "a target" means, not has it told you who the targets are. It has only said which creatures are affected and then subsequently referred to creatures affected by the spell as "a target".
I consider this undeniable proof that the books collectively do not use the word "target" in the restrictive way you are arguing, being only the creature/object/point chosen during the targeting of the spell. The word target is also used to mean someone or something directly affected by the spell. This is true because there is the text right there in Fireball, doing that exact thing.
And so, you can't twin Ice Knife...
Doesn't affect BB at all either way though.
Can you describe to me why creatures hit by a Fireball are targets, but those in a Grease spell when it is cast (or Stinking Cloud, or anything other point-targeting AOE spell) are not? Because the only difference I can see is, Fireball calls those creatures targets, while other spells don’t.
Your suggested takeaway is, “only Fireball is being explicit, but all spells operate like Fireball, even when they don’t say they do.” In so doing, you blatantly disregard the actual language of Chapter 10, in several subsections, relying instead on a general unwritten over-rule that is found nowhere.
My takeaway is that Fireball is a specific exception to the general rule that targets are the points, objects, or creatures you choose. In so doing, I respect the wording of that spell, other spells, and Chapter 10. Only JCs third-party musings are done violence.
It isn’t just that I disagree with you, I literally don’t see the temptation to buy so heavily into an interpretation with no book support that actually CONTRADICTS the language in Chapter 10 and specific spell descriptions (how can Eyebite target an enemy when it’s range is self????). It’s just... a weird position to take, especially since it causes headaches for so many AOE (Grease) and self targeting (Eyebite) spells that operate more cleanly without your houserule.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Who says creatures within the AoE of Grease or Stinking Cloud aren’t targets (aside from you)? Of course they are. The only difference IS that Fireball uses the word and the others don’t. Again, Chapter 10’s rules on targeting are clear enough for most of us that “target” means “anything affected by the spell’s magic.”
This isn’t a super important point, but your theory that Fireball’s wording is a specific exception to some unstated general rule is based on the idea that spell descriptions are all written to a uniform standard of meaning, something we know beyond a shadow of a doubt to be false.
I didn’t say that they were standard, just that Chapter 10 tells us to respect them.
fine, “the target” of Grease is creatures now, great. Now answer Eyebite.
Fact (on phone, can’t quote, but easy to look up on your end): the target of a spell can’t be outside its range.
Fact: Eyebite range is self.
Fact: Eyebite effects another creature the same round it is first cast.
if the target of a spell is any creature the spell effects (or at least, those effected at the time it is cast), then we got a problem partner.
or, we can avoid said problem.... by just not houseruling that unwritten rule in the first place???
ETA: Yes, Eyebite throws around some bizarre “target” references that suggest that creatures are targeted... by the secondary effect, not the spell itself. It’s hair splitting, but necessary if you don’t want to be forced to take a sharpie to Chapter 10 and accept that either the Chapter or the spell is hopelessly compromised :/
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Fact: Eyebite range is self.
Fact: Twin spell calls out spells with range of self as being ineligible.
Fact: Eyebite is irrelevant to the current discussion.
Fact: you chose an example spell that actually uses the word target and try to describe that a target is something other than what the words of your example spell say. that is self-evidently false.
It's not irrelevant when you're arguing for a rule to be recognized in this context, which will cause problems in every other context. Eyebite shows rather clearly that "the target of a spell is any creature the spell effects" is false.
Are you instead agreeing that that is not an (unwritten) rule about targets, but rather that Twinned Spell has unwritten text that says "no spell which effects more than one creature may be Twinned"? That is equally unsupported by the RAW, but at least limits its damage to the context of a single class, rather than corrupting every published spell for everyone?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
What house rule would that be?