And the range of fireball tells you that it is an area spell, then the first sentence tells you to place its point of origin. THEN the spell goes on to tell you about targets.
You are absolutely correct that fireball calls the creatures affected targets. But Fireball fits into the type of spell (area spells) whose target is a point in space. The rules absolutely double down on that in the range rules:
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.
And the range of fireball tells you that it is an area spell, then the first sentence tells you to place its point of origin. THEN the spell goes on to tell you about targets.
You are absolutely correct that fireball calls the creatures affected targets. But Fireball fits into the type of spell (area spells) whose target is a point in space. The rules absolutely double down on that in the range rules:
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.
Aha! That was the missing text I didn't know about. Huh. That is just straight up wrong then. Or the Fireball spell and also the Adjudicating Area of Effect Spells section is. They directly contradict one another.
Let's for just a moment assume that the point of origin was indeed the target of fireball. Right, for sake of argument.
A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
If we then apply that ruling to the spell's description, that the target is the point of origin, then... the spell only does damage to the point of origin. Because it says the target takes damage. It doesn't say the affected creatures take damage. The target does.
It isn't alone, either. Fireball isn't a fluke one-off.
Even a spell like Booming Blade is an AOE, with a (self)5ft radius range. So, you'd rule that you.. the self, the point of origin, is the target?
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. If the target willingly moves 5 feet or more before then, the target takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends.
If you can use this AOE that clearly targets another creature in Warcaster, you should be able to use any AOE that is capable of targeting only one too. And, Warcaster has specific guidance. JC has discussed that it does work with Warcaster. It has been discussed here too:
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
But fireball is a fluke in that it is the only (or one of a very small number) area spell that actually calls affected creatures targets. Otherwise, for other spells we only have the general rules that tell us that the point of origin is the target for area spells.
Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes fire damage equal to the total accumulated damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
And if you look at the rest of the rules that has been quoted here it seems clear to me that it is Fireball that is in error to use "target" in the way it does. So I don't think we really should be looking at Fireball for the answers that we're looking for in this thread.
But fireball is a fluke in that it is the only (or one of a very small number) area spell that actually calls affected creatures targets. Otherwise, for other spells we only have the general rules that tell us that the point of origin is the target for area spells.
Well, we also have the general rules for Adjudicating Area of Effect spells that says the creatures in the area are the targets. And we have an example of another AOE that is for sure clarified and confirmed to work with warcaster several times by JC. And we have the spell description itself that says the target takes damage.
Are you saying in games you run that only the point of origin of fireball takes the damage since the point of origin is the target?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
But fireball is a fluke in that it is the only (or one of a very small number) area spell that actually calls affected creatures targets. Otherwise, for other spells we only have the general rules that tell us that the point of origin is the target for area spells.
Well, we also have the general rules for Adjudicating Area of Effect spells that says the creatures in the area are the targets. And we have an example of another AOE that is for sure clarified and confirmed to work with warcaster several times by JC. And we have the spell description itself that says the target takes damage.
Are you saying in games you run that only the point of origin of fireball takes the damage since the point of origin is the target?
I’m not saying that at all. Firstly, I’m not so constrained by RAW that I believe that obviously dumb stuff should be played at the table, even if it seems RAW. I tend to read the rules like a natural speaker, meaning if I understand what the rules are getting at, that is how it works at the table. People in this section of the forums tend to forget how English works outside of the game: it exists to convey meaning. If a meaning (or possible reading) is reasonably conveyed by the rules then that is a reasonable ruling.
Additionally, I don’t know of a general rule that say that creatures in an area are called targets. Just with a quick double check, the Area rules, Target rules, and XGtE rules don’t call affected creatures in an area targets. Of course, the target rules tell us that targets are affected by the spell, but then goes on to tell us that the target of an area spell is its origin.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Additionally, I don’t know of a general rule that say that creatures in an area are called targets. Just with a quick double check, the Area rules, Target rules, and XGtE rules don’t call affected creatures in an area targets. Of course, the target rules tell us that targets are affected by the spell, but then goes on to tell us that the target of an area spell is its origin.
I quoted the whole section earlier.
Adjudicating Areas of Effect
Many spells and other game features create areas of effect, such as the cone and the sphere. If you’re not using miniatures or another visual aid, it can sometimes be difficult to determine who’s in an area of effect and who isn’t. The easiest way to address such uncertainty is to go with your gut and make a call.
If you would like more guidance, consider using the Targets in Areas of Effect table. To use the table, imagine which combatants are near one another, and let the table guide you in determining the number of those combatants that are caught in an area of effect. Add or subtract targets based on how bunched up the potential targets are. Consider rolling 1d3 to determine the amount to add or subtract.
Targets in Areas of Effect
Area
Number of Targets
Cone
Size ÷ 10 (round up)
Cube or square
Size ÷ 5 (round up)
Cylinder
Radius ÷ 5 (round up)
Line
Length ÷ 30 (round up)
Sphere or circle
Radius ÷ 5 (round up)
For example, if a wizard directs burning hands (a 15-foot cone) at a nearby group of orcs, you could use the table and say that two orcs are targeted (15 ÷ 10 = 1.5, rounded up to 2). Similarly, a sorcerer could launch a lightning bolt (100-foot line) at some ogres and hobgoblins, and you could use the table to say four of the monsters are targeted (100 ÷ 30 = 3.33, rounded up to 4).
This approach aims at simplicity instead of spatial precision. If you prefer more tactical nuance, consider using miniatures.
This is from the DMG. Chapter 8 Running The Game. Combat. Adjudicating Areas of Effect.
It tells us perfectly clearly what the targets of AOE spells like these are.
There is also, as you often reference, just common language usage to lean on. What are you trying to do when you cast Fireball? Are you trying to target a point of origin, or are you trying to target the creatures in the 20ft radius? You're trying to target that gaggle of goblins and clear the room of enemy combatants! No one is thinking: "Screw this particular intersection of grid lines on the combat map in particular". They're not trying to burn the area, they're trying to burn the creatures in the area. They're targeting them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I don't think you can seriously tell me what my ruling is. All I've done since you've joined the conversation is point out that your ruling is inconsistent with the actual written text of the rules because the term target is actuallyused in multiple ways. A person can ONLY make a ruling on this topic.
It tells us perfectly clearly what the targets of AOE spells like these are.
And the target rules say something else. So Bleh.
There is also, as you often reference, just common language usage to lean on. What are you trying to do when you cast Fireball? Are you trying to target a point of origin, or are you trying to target the creatures in the 20ft radius? You're trying to target that gaggle of goblins and clear the room of enemy combatants! No one is thinking: "Screw this particular intersection of grid lines on the combat map in particular". They're not trying to burn the area, they're trying to burn the creatures in the area. They're targeting them.
No, but they could perfectly well be thinking "If I target that spot i can hit those 4 instead of aiming directly at that one and only hitting 2."
I don't think you can seriously tell me what my ruling is. All I've done since you've joined the conversation is point out that your ruling is inconsistent with the actual written text of the rules because the term target is actuallyused in multiple ways. A person can ONLY make a ruling on this topic.
Right, and I've pointed out that ALL rulings are inconsistent with the actual written text.
The problem, it seems, is the written text. It disagrees with itself in different locations.
Adjudicating section calls creatures in the AOE targets
Range section says points of origin is the target
Target section says the description tells you what the target is
And some spell descriptions call the creatures in the area targets but other dont
There isn't a ruling here that doesn't disagree with something.
JC himself seems to have flip flopped on this in different discussions, I've been trying to figure out his thoughts on it, reading tweets, listening to talks, and they're wildly inconsistent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
My ruling is that you use context clues and comprehension and choose whichever rules meaning of "target" that is appropriate for the feature you're trying to adjudicate. As I indicated above when I said that Fireball doesn't just do damage to its point of origin.
My ruling is that you use context clues and comprehension and choose whichever rules meaning of "target" that is appropriate for the feature you're trying to adjudicate. As I indicated above when I said that Fireball doesn't just do damage to its point of origin.
So, then, it is valid to use with Warcaster. So long as the only creature struck (targeted) is the guy who provoked the attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Each of these are AOE's that involve a saving throw. And anyone in the area is called a "creature" until the saving throw is failed and then only those who failed it, and thus are affected by it, are called "targets". This might also be why Fireball has the language it have as normally for that spell you are affected even after a successful save and thus all "creatures" in the area would also be "targets".
This is probably also why the "Targets in Areas of Effect" that you keep going on about has the wording it have as that section is about determining how many creatures in an area that are affected. And the "targets" refer only to those that are actually targeted.
These aren't really AOE's but rather you target a specific point or creature and the size of the AOE then specifies how big an effect you can create around that target but neither spell allows you to directly affect multiple targets.
This one is somewhat special as what the spell calls "targets" aren't directly affected by the spell but rather the spell stops them from being targeted by (some) other effects.
This one actually does work in the way you argue, everyone in the area is a "target" directly regardless if they are yet suffering any effects of the spell or not.
True but I don't think it is anywhere as spread as you think as most of those examples doesn't prove your point.
How many examples proving the point are necessary after the first? Curious sentiment. Does it only become proven if 3 examples prove it? 10 examples? What is the correct number of examples that are worded this way? Seems like any amount of them proves it, and each after the first isn't necessary to prove it since even one of them proves it.
How heavy are goalposts, btw? I've always wondered when people move them around this much if they get tired.
Each of these are AOE's that involve a saving throw. And anyone in the area is called a "creature" until the saving throw is failed and then only those who failed it, and thus are affected by it, are called "targets".
Right. These spells calls the creatures affected by it, in the area of effect... targets. That is correct. This entirely disproves the notion that the point of origin is what the spell is targeting. Instead, it is targeting the creatures in the area. Not the point of origin.
This might also be why Fireball has the language it have as normally for that spell you are affected even after a successful save and thus all "creatures" in the area would also be "targets".
Yes, fireball targets the creatures in the area, correct.
This is probably also why the "Targets in Areas of Effect" that you keep going on about has the wording it have as that section is about determining how many creatures in an area that are affected. And the "targets" refer only to those that are actually targeted.
"That I keep going on about" You mean the specific section on how to adjudicate targets of area of effect spells? Yeah, it seems important when trying to figure out what is the target of area of effect spells.
These aren't really AOE's but rather you target a specific point or creature and the size of the AOE then specifies how big an effect you can create around that target but neither spell allows you to directly affect multiple targets.
You can disagree with the authors range/area classification if you like, absolutely.
This one is somewhat special as what the spell calls "targets" aren't directly affected by the spell but rather the spell stops them from being targeted by (some) other effects.
This one actually does work in the way you argue, everyone in the area is a "target" directly regardless if they are yet suffering any effects of the spell or not.
See, yes. But also not a big distinction. All the creatures in it are targets. yep. But, even still, the key point is still that what the spell is targeting is something other than the point of origin. So while this is the strongest example of it, the other examples showcase the issues just as well. The point of origin isn't the target.
In itself, not really. It is a problem though with how it interacts with other features such as Warcaster.
If you genuinely apply the ruling that AOE spells only "target" their point of origin, and then apply that ruling faithfully to the text of these spells. You get wacky results.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Given that Fireball is THE spell that the PHB provides to teach you about targets, it is not a “fluke”
Spells often have two layers of target: one for casting the spell (which MUST be within range), possibly others for effects (which can sometimes get fuzzy). There’s no amount of wishful thinking that will reconcile away that 5E has more than one meaning for target, and features that require spells to “only” target one thing are often hard to interpret RAW for that reason.
Fireball targets a point you cast it on. It’s effect then targets possibly several creatures. Essentially, every AOE works that way, even single-target AOEs (booming blade), or AOEs that are only one square in size (create bonfire).
I agree generally with your assessment generally, C_C. My point in calling it a fluke was that most spells that affect all creatures within a specified area don't actually call those specified creatures targets (see faerie fire as an example). That is absolutely true even if Rav was able to ctrl-F a handful that have "target" in their text and was able to properly interpret a few of them.
Just to nitpick a little bit though and as Thezzaruz tried to point out, Rav did have to abuse some definitions to put that list together though. "Range" entries in the actual RAW (books, not D&Dbeyond) don't actually include areas or shapes. This means we have to use the descriptions to tell us what a spell is/does. Phantasmal force absolutely targets a single creature and that creature is the target of the spell. The Illusion's size is limited by the spell by noting a particular shape. Nothing inside the illusion's shape is necessarily a target (I guess you could include the target's space in the area of the illusion). Other spells, like slow ask you to target specific creatures limited to a shape, and do not produce an effect in the overall shape. The area for this type of spell is a limitation on creature selection, which could be importantly distinct from an area under the effect of the spell. Everything in the area of a fireball gets blasted with fire, only a few creatures in the area of a slow get slowed. Some of the spells like storm sphere seem like they were added to the list without even being read.
I'm a simple man, my take on this is 'can you cast the spell while you cannot see anyone around you (including yourself)?' If the answer is yes then it pretty much rules out the spell for Warcaster in my humble opinion.
Can we please stop engaging in thread necromancy? This thread was dead and buried until Ravnodaus responded to a *nine month old post* about fireball. Thread necromancy is *universally* a waste of time because it's intrinsically off-topic - the original people interested in the conversation are no longer having it. If you have genuine interest in some topic and there's no current thread for it, start a new one. It's perfectly ok to start a new rules thread talking about the fireball spell and what exactly its targets are.
Curious. I was looking for this subject, found this thread, and replied with what seemed like missing information. That is frowned upon? Never seen anyone ever called out for it in this targeted way before, so I guess I never noticed. Rechecking the site rules they specifically say that thread necromancy isn't against the rules here. Seems to be plenty common practice, this isn't even the oldest topic on page one of this sub-forum.
I agree generally with your assessment generally, C_C. My point in calling it a fluke was that most spells that affect all creatures within a specified area don't actually call those specified creatures targets (see faerie fire as an example).
Yes it is absolutely true that some AOE do target their point of origin, I'm not sure Faerie Fire is a great example of that but for sure some AOEs target/affect the area itself. entangle is a better example of a spell that does target the point of origin, and that does affect that area, changing it in some way.
That is absolutely true even if Rav was able to ctrl-F a handful that have "target" in their text and was able to properly interpret a few of them.
Yes, some spells refer to things other than their point of origin as a target. That is problematic if you rule that point of origin is the target. If point of origin is the target, and not the creatures in the area of fireball, only the point of origin takes fire damage from fireball. That, as we all can agree, isn't how the spell should be interpreted so something is wrong with the description, or with the rule that its point of origin is the target.
Unless, as JC has sorta argued a few times, that the "target" of the point of origin isn't the sort of "target" that warcaster is referring to or that its own description might call for.
Booming Blade targets Self. And then has a 5ft radius AOE.
We all agree Booming Blade works with warcaster?
How does it targeting Self not disqualify it? That is the point of origin for that 5ft aoe effect.
Well, as JC suggests, that point-of-origin-target isn't what the feat Warcaster is talking about. it is talking about creatures-affected-targeted.
Just to nitpick a little bit though and as Thezzaruz tried to point out, Rav did have to abuse some definitions to put that list together though. "Range" entries in the actual RAW (books, not D&Dbeyond) don't actually include areas or shapes. This means we have to use the descriptions to tell us what a spell is/does. Phantasmal force absolutely targets a single creature and that creature is the target of the spell. The Illusion's size is limited by the spell by noting a particular shape. Nothing inside the illusion's shape is necessarily a target (I guess you could include the target's space in the area of the illusion).
True, true. Phantasmal force isn't a great addition to the list. The AOE comes after the targeting. I missed that. Though, to be fair, the target is still the point of origin of that AOE effect, as well as the targeted creature. Right? All points of origin are targets? No?
Other spells, like slow ask you to target specific creatures limited to a shape, and do not produce an effect in the overall shape. The area for this type of spell is a limitation on creature selection, which could be importantly distinct from an area under the effect of the spell.
So are you trying to carve out an exception here? That not all AOEs have a point of origin that is a target?
Everything in the area of a fireball gets blasted with fire, only a few creatures in the area of a slow get slowed.
Fireball and slow both do absolutely nothing to the area they "target". That's the thing. Saying they target an area and then do absolutely nothing to that area seems silly. Fireball targets creatures and objects IN the area. not the area. And slow targets a small number of creatures IN the area, not the area. Saying these spells target a point of origin is nonsensical because they do nothing whatsoever to that point of origin, or even to the area.
Some of the spells like storm sphere seem like they were added to the list without even being read.
No, that one is exactly a good add. It clearly defines that it creates an AOE, and then defines that it targets creature either in or out of that area. If the point of origin is 'the target" then the spell doesn't do damage to creatures, it does damage to the point of origin. That, again, we all should agree isn't how it works. Saying the point of origin is the target for this spell makes no sense. Again, if the point of origin is the target... when the spell says "On a hit, the target takes4d6 lightning damage."... that would mean the point of origin takes damage?? C'mon. We know that isn't how these spells work.
Fireball is just one example. But I'd argue other AOE are in a similar situation even if they don't have this incredibly obvious wording calling the creatures they're affecting specifically and explicitely their target.
Take Lightning Bolt for example. This spell should be basically identically eligible for warcaster as Booming Blade is. Range is self then 100ft line. Vs self then 5ft radius. Both have a point of origin as self. So if booming Blade's self doesn't count as a target for warcaster's purposes then neither would Lightning Bolts, right?
This really seems to be one of those cases where a lot of people have just ruled it in an inconsistent way for years and don't have any official sources to reconcile it all in a consistent way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Don't tell me we have to discuss attacks here too. Storm sphere allows you to make an attack. The "target" in the text of the spell is the attack's target.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And the range of fireball tells you that it is an area spell, then the first sentence tells you to place its point of origin. THEN the spell goes on to tell you about targets.
You are absolutely correct that fireball calls the creatures affected targets. But Fireball fits into the type of spell (area spells) whose target is a point in space. The rules absolutely double down on that in the range rules:
Aha! That was the missing text I didn't know about. Huh. That is just straight up wrong then. Or the Fireball spell and also the Adjudicating Area of Effect Spells section is. They directly contradict one another.
Let's for just a moment assume that the point of origin was indeed the target of fireball. Right, for sake of argument.
If we then apply that ruling to the spell's description, that the target is the point of origin, then... the spell only does damage to the point of origin. Because it says the target takes damage. It doesn't say the affected creatures take damage. The target does.
It isn't alone, either. Fireball isn't a fluke one-off.
Even a spell like Booming Blade is an AOE, with a (self)5ft radius range. So, you'd rule that you.. the self, the point of origin, is the target?
If you can use this AOE that clearly targets another creature in Warcaster, you should be able to use any AOE that is capable of targeting only one too. And, Warcaster has specific guidance. JC has discussed that it does work with Warcaster. It has been discussed here too:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/87184-does-war-caster-work-with-booming-blade
It becomes pretty obvious that the Point of Origin isn't a "target" in the sense that the Warcaster feat cares about.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
But fireball is a fluke in that it is the only (or one of a very small number) area spell that actually calls affected creatures targets. Otherwise, for other spells we only have the general rules that tell us that the point of origin is the target for area spells.
Yea I have to agree with Wolf here, Fireball is the odd one here with its use of the word "target", other AOE spells don't use it.
Look at a spell like Delayed Blast Fireball that says;
While Fireball says;
And if you look at the rest of the rules that has been quoted here it seems clear to me that it is Fireball that is in error to use "target" in the way it does. So I don't think we really should be looking at Fireball for the answers that we're looking for in this thread.
Well, we also have the general rules for Adjudicating Area of Effect spells that says the creatures in the area are the targets. And we have an example of another AOE that is for sure clarified and confirmed to work with warcaster several times by JC. And we have the spell description itself that says the target takes damage.
Are you saying in games you run that only the point of origin of fireball takes the damage since the point of origin is the target?
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I’m not saying that at all. Firstly, I’m not so constrained by RAW that I believe that obviously dumb stuff should be played at the table, even if it seems RAW. I tend to read the rules like a natural speaker, meaning if I understand what the rules are getting at, that is how it works at the table. People in this section of the forums tend to forget how English works outside of the game: it exists to convey meaning. If a meaning (or possible reading) is reasonably conveyed by the rules then that is a reasonable ruling.
Additionally, I don’t know of a general rule that say that creatures in an area are called targets. Just with a quick double check, the Area rules, Target rules, and XGtE rules don’t call affected creatures in an area targets. Of course, the target rules tell us that targets are affected by the spell, but then goes on to tell us that the target of an area spell is its origin.
This isn't unique to fireball.
It is enough to be problematic.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I quoted the whole section earlier.
This is from the DMG. Chapter 8 Running The Game. Combat. Adjudicating Areas of Effect.
It tells us perfectly clearly what the targets of AOE spells like these are.
There is also, as you often reference, just common language usage to lean on. What are you trying to do when you cast Fireball? Are you trying to target a point of origin, or are you trying to target the creatures in the 20ft radius? You're trying to target that gaggle of goblins and clear the room of enemy combatants! No one is thinking: "Screw this particular intersection of grid lines on the combat map in particular". They're not trying to burn the area, they're trying to burn the creatures in the area. They're targeting them.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I don't think you can seriously tell me what my ruling is. All I've done since you've joined the conversation is point out that your ruling is inconsistent with the actual written text of the rules because the term target is actually used in multiple ways. A person can ONLY make a ruling on this topic.
And the target rules say something else. So Bleh.
No, but they could perfectly well be thinking "If I target that spot i can hit those 4 instead of aiming directly at that one and only hitting 2."
Right, and I've pointed out that ALL rulings are inconsistent with the actual written text.
The problem, it seems, is the written text. It disagrees with itself in different locations.
There isn't a ruling here that doesn't disagree with something.
JC himself seems to have flip flopped on this in different discussions, I've been trying to figure out his thoughts on it, reading tweets, listening to talks, and they're wildly inconsistent.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
My ruling is that you use context clues and comprehension and choose whichever rules meaning of "target" that is appropriate for the feature you're trying to adjudicate. As I indicated above when I said that Fireball doesn't just do damage to its point of origin.
So, then, it is valid to use with Warcaster. So long as the only creature struck (targeted) is the guy who provoked the attack.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
True but I don't think it is anywhere as spread as you think as most of those examples doesn't prove your point.
Each of these are AOE's that involve a saving throw. And anyone in the area is called a "creature" until the saving throw is failed and then only those who failed it, and thus are affected by it, are called "targets".
This might also be why Fireball has the language it have as normally for that spell you are affected even after a successful save and thus all "creatures" in the area would also be "targets".
This is probably also why the "Targets in Areas of Effect" that you keep going on about has the wording it have as that section is about determining how many creatures in an area that are affected. And the "targets" refer only to those that are actually targeted.
In itself, not really. It is a problem though with how it interacts with other features such as Warcaster.
How many examples proving the point are necessary after the first? Curious sentiment. Does it only become proven if 3 examples prove it? 10 examples? What is the correct number of examples that are worded this way? Seems like any amount of them proves it, and each after the first isn't necessary to prove it since even one of them proves it.
How heavy are goalposts, btw? I've always wondered when people move them around this much if they get tired.
Right. These spells calls the creatures affected by it, in the area of effect... targets. That is correct. This entirely disproves the notion that the point of origin is what the spell is targeting. Instead, it is targeting the creatures in the area. Not the point of origin.
Yes, fireball targets the creatures in the area, correct.
"That I keep going on about" You mean the specific section on how to adjudicate targets of area of effect spells? Yeah, it seems important when trying to figure out what is the target of area of effect spells.
If you genuinely apply the ruling that AOE spells only "target" their point of origin, and then apply that ruling faithfully to the text of these spells. You get wacky results.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Given that Fireball is THE spell that the PHB provides to teach you about targets, it is not a “fluke”
Spells often have two layers of target: one for casting the spell (which MUST be within range), possibly others for effects (which can sometimes get fuzzy). There’s no amount of wishful thinking that will reconcile away that 5E has more than one meaning for target, and features that require spells to “only” target one thing are often hard to interpret RAW for that reason.
Fireball targets a point you cast it on. It’s effect then targets possibly several creatures. Essentially, every AOE works that way, even single-target AOEs (booming blade), or AOEs that are only one square in size (create bonfire).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I agree generally with your assessment generally, C_C. My point in calling it a fluke was that most spells that affect all creatures within a specified area don't actually call those specified creatures targets (see faerie fire as an example). That is absolutely true even if Rav was able to ctrl-F a handful that have "target" in their text and was able to properly interpret a few of them.
Just to nitpick a little bit though and as Thezzaruz tried to point out, Rav did have to abuse some definitions to put that list together though. "Range" entries in the actual RAW (books, not D&Dbeyond) don't actually include areas or shapes. This means we have to use the descriptions to tell us what a spell is/does. Phantasmal force absolutely targets a single creature and that creature is the target of the spell. The Illusion's size is limited by the spell by noting a particular shape. Nothing inside the illusion's shape is necessarily a target (I guess you could include the target's space in the area of the illusion). Other spells, like slow ask you to target specific creatures limited to a shape, and do not produce an effect in the overall shape. The area for this type of spell is a limitation on creature selection, which could be importantly distinct from an area under the effect of the spell. Everything in the area of a fireball gets blasted with fire, only a few creatures in the area of a slow get slowed. Some of the spells like storm sphere seem like they were added to the list without even being read.
I'm a simple man, my take on this is 'can you cast the spell while you cannot see anyone around you (including yourself)?' If the answer is yes then it pretty much rules out the spell for Warcaster in my humble opinion.
Curious. I was looking for this subject, found this thread, and replied with what seemed like missing information. That is frowned upon? Never seen anyone ever called out for it in this targeted way before, so I guess I never noticed. Rechecking the site rules they specifically say that thread necromancy isn't against the rules here. Seems to be plenty common practice, this isn't even the oldest topic on page one of this sub-forum.
Yes it is absolutely true that some AOE do target their point of origin, I'm not sure Faerie Fire is a great example of that but for sure some AOEs target/affect the area itself. entangle is a better example of a spell that does target the point of origin, and that does affect that area, changing it in some way.
Yes, some spells refer to things other than their point of origin as a target. That is problematic if you rule that point of origin is the target. If point of origin is the target, and not the creatures in the area of fireball, only the point of origin takes fire damage from fireball. That, as we all can agree, isn't how the spell should be interpreted so something is wrong with the description, or with the rule that its point of origin is the target.
Unless, as JC has sorta argued a few times, that the "target" of the point of origin isn't the sort of "target" that warcaster is referring to or that its own description might call for.
Booming Blade targets Self. And then has a 5ft radius AOE.
We all agree Booming Blade works with warcaster?
How does it targeting Self not disqualify it? That is the point of origin for that 5ft aoe effect.
Well, as JC suggests, that point-of-origin-target isn't what the feat Warcaster is talking about. it is talking about creatures-affected-targeted.
True, true. Phantasmal force isn't a great addition to the list. The AOE comes after the targeting. I missed that. Though, to be fair, the target is still the point of origin of that AOE effect, as well as the targeted creature. Right? All points of origin are targets? No?
So are you trying to carve out an exception here? That not all AOEs have a point of origin that is a target?
Fireball and slow both do absolutely nothing to the area they "target". That's the thing. Saying they target an area and then do absolutely nothing to that area seems silly. Fireball targets creatures and objects IN the area. not the area. And slow targets a small number of creatures IN the area, not the area. Saying these spells target a point of origin is nonsensical because they do nothing whatsoever to that point of origin, or even to the area.
No, that one is exactly a good add. It clearly defines that it creates an AOE, and then defines that it targets creature either in or out of that area. If the point of origin is 'the target" then the spell doesn't do damage to creatures, it does damage to the point of origin. That, again, we all should agree isn't how it works. Saying the point of origin is the target for this spell makes no sense. Again, if the point of origin is the target... when the spell says "On a hit, the target takes4d6 lightning damage."... that would mean the point of origin takes damage?? C'mon. We know that isn't how these spells work.
Fireball is just one example. But I'd argue other AOE are in a similar situation even if they don't have this incredibly obvious wording calling the creatures they're affecting specifically and explicitely their target.
Take Lightning Bolt for example. This spell should be basically identically eligible for warcaster as Booming Blade is. Range is self then 100ft line. Vs self then 5ft radius. Both have a point of origin as self. So if booming Blade's self doesn't count as a target for warcaster's purposes then neither would Lightning Bolts, right?
This really seems to be one of those cases where a lot of people have just ruled it in an inconsistent way for years and don't have any official sources to reconcile it all in a consistent way.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Don't tell me we have to discuss attacks here too. Storm sphere allows you to make an attack. The "target" in the text of the spell is the attack's target.