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.
Right. The spell description tells you what its target is. That's exactly what I'm arguing. The point of origin of the AOE isn't the target. The spell description tells you what the target is.
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.
A note about D&D spells with a range of "Self (XYZ)": the parenthetical—which says "5-foot radius," "15-foot cone," or something else—means you are the spell's point of origin, but you aren't necessarily its target. You're creating an effect that originates in your space.
Here JC argues that being the point of origin doesn'tmake you the spells target.
Also tweeted:
Booming blade works with War Caster.
and
The Booming Blade spell continues to work with the War Caster feat. The spell targets one creature. The Green-Flame Blade spell continues to work with War Caster if you forgo targeting a second creature with the green fire.
So despite it's point of origin being itself, booming blade only targets one creature.
The same could be said of a well aimed fireball. You could absolutely imagine a scenario where only the guy triggering the OA is the only creature targeted.
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.
Right. The spell description tells you what its target is. That's exactly what I'm arguing. The point of origin of the AOE isn't the target. The spell description tells you what the target is.
Are you saying that creatures inside the sphere aren't targets unless you target them with the attack later?
Those JC tweets are countertextual to the PHB, disregard them.
“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.”
”A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).”
The “point in space” where you place an AOE is a target. The spell’s effect may then affect other creatures, objects, or areas… those are often called “targets” too. Or, it may let you wield a new ability while the spells effect persists, “targeting” more creatures, objects, or areas with spell effects; these are also targets.
Points of origin/spell placements (points, creatures, etc) are always targets. Affected creatures are always targets (of at least the spell effect, if not perhaps the spell itself while being cast). These truths are found in the PHB, not Twitter.
Those JC tweets are countertextual to the PHB, disregard them.
“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.”
”A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).”
The “point in space” where you place an AOE is a target. The spell’s effect may then affect other creatures, objects, or areas… those are often called “targets” too. Or, it may let you wield a new ability while the spells effect persists, “targeting” more creatures, objects, or areas with spell effects; these are also targets.
Points of origin/spell placements (points, creatures, etc) are always targets. Affected creatures are always targets (of at least the spell effect, if not perhaps the spell itself while being cast). These truths are found in the PHB, not Twitter.
So then Fireball does 8d6 fire damage to the point of origin? And, Booming Blade isn't compatible with warcaster?
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.
Right. The spell description tells you what its target is. That's exactly what I'm arguing. The point of origin of the AOE isn't the target. The spell description tells you what the target is.
This is what I'm struggling with in this thread. It's one thing to argue the meaning when there is ambiguity in the wording. In this case, there is no ambiguity in the wording. Someone is just arguing that a spell doesn't really target what it says it targets... because of reasons?
It targets what it says. Which is (1) it’s point of origin in space, and (2) the creatures in that AOE. It does 8d6 damage to it targets (Creatures in that AOE, but also any objects if “ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried” isn’t clear enough for your purposes).
I don’t think that’s particularly hard to follow. Trying to ignore plain text and rationalize a way to pick a target for the spell without admitting it’s a target, now THATS the stretch I don’t understand.
Okay, so, we are getting somewhere. C_C agrees that the spell targets the creatures in the AOE. Starting with this new common ground we can determine a few things. That means that fireball can indeed target a creature. And, it also means, if placed correctly, that fireball can target only that one creature. Thus, it be eligible for warcaster. Why?
Those JC tweets are countertextual to the PHB, disregard them.
I don't think they are. I think that they show us exactly what the requirement is actually looking for. It is checking to see that the creature that triggered the OA and ONLY that one creature is going to be affected by the spell. If the spell is going to affect anything else? No go. Affect only that one target? Good to go.
So that's why he's clarified repeatedly, and is posted up in sage advice, that warcaster works with booming blade. So it should, similarly, work for any spell so long as that spell only targets that one creature (as in only affects that one creature).
must target only that creature.
How you read these 5 words will determine how you land on this issue.
With JCs numerous clarifications it is clear we should be reading this as: target only that creature (ie. and not any other creatures.)
Thus Fireball is eligible. Most AOEs would be if aimed properly.
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.
Literally no one has been saying fireball doesn’t target creatures.
The reason it’s not eligible for War Caster is that in no case does it ever target “only that creature,” because its primary target is a point in space, which is a target different from and in addition to that creature, which violates the “only” provision.
Literally no one has been saying fireball doesn’t target creatures.
The reason it’s not eligible for War Caster is that in no case does it ever target “only that creature,” because its primary target is a point in space, which is a target different from and in addition to that creature, which violates the “only” provision.
I wouldn't say it's ineligible because it first targets a point in space. While that might violate "targets ONLY that creature" it doesn't violate "targets only THAT creature".
Ignoring the point-in-space initial target would bring Booming Blade into alignment with JC's ruling. Interpreting the restriction as "targets that creature and no other creature (and also probably no objects please)" seems to align very well with all of the tweets.
Rather I would rule fireball ineligible due to the Invisible Pixie proposition. That is, that you must at all times assume that there are 6 invisible pixies hovering within 5 ft of a creature - and that any spell you are casting for Warcaster must be careful not to hit any of those pixies or it is not valid as a single target spell. Green-flame Blade lets you chose to forgo the flame damage you might direct at one of the pixies, so it is valid. Fireball will strike at least one pixie so it is not. Create Bonfire is ineligible because it will strike the pixie sitting on the target's shoulder, as well as the future pixie who arrives in the same space one turn later. If you cannot with absolute certainty say that your spell will not hit such a pixie then it should not be used with Warcaster.
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).
A reminder to all involved in a thread that repeating the same talking points ad-nauseum is not a constructive contribution to any discussion. If you are finding yourself having to repeat the same thing repeatedly., that may be a sign to step away from the conversation; both for your own benefit and to avoid being disruptive to the discussion.
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).
Right, and fireball’s description tells you that it targets a point within range and also creatures within 20 feet of that point. Fireball is even more inarguable than other AoEs because it literally uses the word “target.”
When you cast the spell, you obviously target a point in space. But when the spell goes off, the effect targets each creature within range. I guess you really could say that all of the above are targets of the spell, though in different ways. That seems really inconsistent with the spellcasting rules for targeting, but it is what it is. I really can't argue against that.
I do in theory agree with Texas and Rav that yes, I would love if 5E kept straight when it was talking about the targets of spells versus the targets of spell effects. I think that when the spell itself talks about its spell effects using the word ”targets”, it gets to really become swimming upstream to think that the spell itself doesn’t use the right language ... but something stinks.
I think the RAI at this point has been sufficiently cleared up over the years that 5E doesn’t split this hair and really lumps spell targets and spell effect targets together… at least spell effect targets that are being targeted on the same round and with the same action that the spell is cast. Later round targets, like the targets that you go after with vampiric touch, those may not be spell targets (even though they have quite a lot in common with the creatures that are caught in a fireball)… problems!
but then on top of that we have RAI ambiguity about what the term ”targets only one creature” means. Regent is absolutely correct that the emphasis could be that there is only one target and that target is one creature… or the emphasis could be that the spell targets only one creature no matter how many non-creature points of origins it also includes. Back when booming blade was being erratad and Jeremy Crawford tweeted that booming blade can still be used with Warcaster, that is clearly the understanding that he has, that you can target a point of origin and one creature as long as you only target one creature. well actually his understanding is that points of origin are not targets, but since that is demonstrably incorrect with explicit PHB language, I’ll assume that he still wants that result and is willing to shift his reasoning to justify that a spell that targets a point and one creature is eligible…
at the end of the day points of origin are always targets that’s a done deal.
creatures that are caught in an AOE Blast after a spell has been placed at its target point of origin should probably more accurately be considered the targets of a secondary spell effect not the targets of a spell… but it seems like the RAI is that they are indeed treated as targets of the cast spell.
creatures that are targeted by a subsequent spell effect that takes a different action or that happens on a different round outside the initial casting of the spell, the RAI seems to be that they be treated like targets of spell effects, not the targets of a spell, despite the fact that they are very mechanically similar to the targets caught in an AOE.
creatures that are directly targeted by a spell or obviously targets a spell.
and the intent of features that look for only one target of a spell is debatable, but if you believe Jeremy Crawford about Booming Blade, then an appropriately shaped Fireball would seem to be the same situation as Rav is suggesting.
For lack of better vocabulary, I am going to differentiate between spell casting target and spell effect target. Because the spell casting target is a point in space and not a creature, I feel that fireball is not going to be valid for war caster.
However, if someone wants to say that the spell effect target is only one creature in a given circumstance and that circumstance allows fireball to work with war caster, then I suppose that is a fair interpretation of the wording even though I don't see it that way. If you cast fireball in such a way that the only creature targeted by the spell effect (the only creature forced to make a saving throw) was the one that triggered the reaction, you have satisfied the rule according to that interpretation.
I have to say that both are technically valid (and opposite) interpretations, and you should probably square this with your DM before you try it :)
Literally no one has been saying fireball doesn’t target creatures.
The reason it’s not eligible for War Caster is that in no case does it ever target “only that creature,” because its primary target is a point in space, which is a target different from and in addition to that creature, which violates the “only” provision.
I wouldn't say it's ineligible because it first targets a point in space. While that might violate "targets ONLY that creature" it doesn't violate "targets only THAT creature".
Ignoring the point-in-space initial target would bring Booming Blade into alignment with JC's ruling. Interpreting the restriction as "targets that creature and no other creature (and also probably no objects please)" seems to align very well with all of the tweets.
This was my thinking precisely.
Rather I would rule fireball ineligible due to the Invisible Pixie proposition. That is, that you must at all times assume that there are 6 invisible pixies hovering within 5 ft of a creature - and that any spell you are casting for Warcaster must be careful not to hit any of those pixies or it is not valid as a single target spell. Green-flame Blade lets you chose to forgo the flame damage you might direct at one of the pixies, so it is valid. Fireball will strike at least one pixie so it is not. Create Bonfire is ineligible because it will strike the pixie sitting on the target's shoulder, as well as the future pixie who arrives in the same space one turn later. If you cannot with absolute certainty say that your spell will not hit such a pixie then it should not be used with Warcaster.
This is certainly something to think about. An invisible pixie being there or not being there, unbeknownst to the warcaster... would either allow or not allow the spell to fire off. There is certainly a conceptual issue here, for sure. I'm not sure this conceptual issue is with just these aoe spells in question, though. For example, Ice Knife. If you try to warcaster Ice Knife, at least at my table, the secondary AOE would need to not hit additional creature. So it is, while generally considered a targeted spell that targets one creature, the fact it then pops off to hit a potentially invisible pixie is still there.
I do like this notion though. It might be an even better criteria than what warcaster actually says... for actual play. More inline with Twin Spell metamagic, requiring the spell be unable to accidentally strike a hypothetical invisible second target.
I do in theory agree with Texas and Rav that yes, I would love if 5E kept straight when it was talking about the targets of spells versus the targets of spell effects. I think that when the spell itself talks about its spell effects using the word ”targets”, it gets to really become swimming upstream to think that the spell itself doesn’t use the right language ... but something stinks.
I think the RAI at this point has been sufficiently cleared up over the years that 5E doesn’t split this hair and really lumps spell targets and spell effect targets together… at least spell effect targets that are being targeted on the same round and with the same action that the spell is cast. Later round targets, like the targets that you go after with vampiric touch, those may not be spell targets (even though they have quite a lot in common with the creatures that are caught in a fireball)… problems!
Yeah, problems indeed. But you're right, the targeting of the spell and the targeting of the spell effect is so synonymous that I'm not sure we could even create much of a case for distinguishing one from the other.
but then on top of that we have RAI ambiguity about what the term ”targets only one creature” means. Regent is absolutely correct that the emphasis could be that there is only one target and that target is one creature… or the emphasis could be that the spell targets only one creature no matter how many non-creature points of origins it also includes. Back when booming blade was being erratad and Jeremy Crawford tweeted that booming blade can still be used with Warcaster, that is clearly the understanding that he has, that you can target a point of origin and one creature as long as you only target one creature. well actually his understanding is that points of origin are not targets, but since that is demonstrably incorrect with explicit PHB language, I’ll assume that he still wants that result and is willing to shift his reward ping to justify that a spell that targets a point and one creature is eligible…
I hadn't even considered AOEs being compatible with warcaster until JC discussed booming blade errata still being eligible. There seemed to be a distinction he was making that I had previously overlooked.
at the end of the day points of origin are always targets that’s a done deal.
Yeah, I missed it initially but this is, indeed, black and white spelled out in the Range section. In my view, this is the weirdest place to include it. Why the Range section instead of the Target section?
But it is only really weird if we lump spell targeting with spell effect targeting. The spell targeting does make sense to include in the Range section, because you're targeting the placement of the AOE. But, the effect targeting, covered elsewhere, doesn't really care about the range.
We can take fireball, for example, still. Range of 150 ft. You can target fireball itself up to 150ft away. Lets say you do, go for max range, and target it 150ft away. Well, some of that effect area is further away than the range. But you can still target the creatures in the effect area, even the ones further than the spell range. Why? because we have 2 different things doing targeting. The spell range determines the spell's AOE placement. Then the AOE determines effect targets.
"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."
Unless of course I'm totally wrong here, and casting fireball at max distance cannot actually hit those creatures in the area of the spell but who are 160ish ft away. They are very technically a target, and not in range of the spell, even if they are in range of the effect of the spell...
creatures that are caught in an AOE Blast after a spell has been placed at its target point of origin should probably more accurately be considered the targets of a secondary spell effect not the targets of a spell… but it seems like the RAI is that they are indeed treated as targets of the cast spell.
creatures that are targeted by a subsequent spell effect that takes a different action or that happens on a different round outside the initial casting of the spell, the RAI seems to be that they be treated like targets of spell effects, not the targets of a spell, despite the fact that they are very mechanically similar to the targets caught in an AOE.
Yeah there seems to be some muddled interactions here in the rules with regards to this. Sometimes it distinguishes them and other times assumes they're identical.
creatures that are directly targeted by a spell or obviously targets a spell.
Yeah, wanna magic missile them? No conflict in RAI or RAW whatsoever. Pew pew. This bad boy passes the invisible pixie test too.
and the intent of features that look for only one target of a spell is debatable, but if you believe Jeremy Crawford about Booming Blade, then an appropriately shaped Fireball would seem to be the same situation as Rav is suggesting.
Thank you! I'm not ever arguing how I want it to work, per se. Just how if you see it ruled one way for reasons x, y, and z, that you gotta then apply that reasoning to everything. If you can warcaster a booming blade, then you should be able to warcaster a fireball aimed carefully too. And for sure without doubt whatsoever a Lightning Bolt because it has the same exact Self(area) range format as Booming Blade does.
This does boil down to can you actually warcaster booming blade or not. If JC's advice is correct, then you can, and that point of origin target isn't what warcaster cares about. If you disagree, and point of origin target is something warcaster cares about in your view, then booming blade isn't an eligible spell, and neither would be just about any aoe for that matter.
Unfortunately, there seems to be conflicting RAI involved here too. I don't think warcaster ever intended to allow a whole host of AOE spell options. I agree there. But, JC has made his intent clear in the opposite direction, that points of origin aren't what warcaster cares about only that the spell actually affects a single creature. And, clearly the melee cantrips are supposed to work with warcaster. But, the melee cantrips are actually aoe spells since the errata so if they're eligible then aoe spells are more broadly as well. It is all a bit of a mess.
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 hadn't even considered AOEs being compatible with warcaster until JC discussed booming blade errata still being eligible. There seemed to be a distinction he was making that I had previously overlooked.
Unfortunately, there seems to be conflicting RAI involved here too. I don't think warcaster ever intended to allow a whole host of AOE spell options. I agree there. But, JC has made his intent clear in the opposite direction, that points of origin aren't what warcaster cares about only that the spell actually affects a single creature. And, clearly the melee cantrips are supposed to work with warcaster. But, the melee cantrips are actually aoe spells since the errata so if they're eligible then aoe spells are more broadly as well. It is all a bit of a mess.
And this probably is why I dislike the outcome you have argued for so much. Before BB/GFB I don't think anyone thought that AOE's were eligible but then they had to mash the language to get BB/GFB to be OK for Warcaster but not for Twinned and suddenly AOE's were good to go.
Unless of course I'm totally wrong here, and casting fireball at max distance cannot actually hit those creatures in the area of the spell but who are 160ish ft away. They are very technically a target, and not in range of the spell, even if they are in range of the effect of the spell...
Pretty sure this has been discussed before and that the distances are separate in 5E so you would be able to hit those 160ft away. In PF2 they do it differently and the max range is also the max range for any effect.
I dont really want to quote everything here, haters gonna hate. Sorry. JC said about range Self (XYZ). I guess he thinks of them as something else than range X(Y). Two different things.
If you ask JC I guess that's how he's going to respond.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Right. The spell description tells you what its target is. That's exactly what I'm arguing. The point of origin of the AOE isn't the target. The spell description tells you what the target is.
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.
Tweets by JC on Sage Advice
Key quotes:
Here JC argues that being the point of origin doesn't make you the spells target.
Also tweeted:
and
So despite it's point of origin being itself, booming blade only targets one creature.
The same could be said of a well aimed fireball. You could absolutely imagine a scenario where only the guy triggering the OA is the only creature targeted.
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.
Are you saying that creatures inside the sphere aren't targets unless you target them with the attack later?
Those JC tweets are countertextual to the PHB, disregard them.
“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.”
”A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).”
The “point in space” where you place an AOE is a target. The spell’s effect may then affect other creatures, objects, or areas… those are often called “targets” too. Or, it may let you wield a new ability while the spells effect persists, “targeting” more creatures, objects, or areas with spell effects; these are also targets.
Points of origin/spell placements (points, creatures, etc) are always targets. Affected creatures are always targets (of at least the spell effect, if not perhaps the spell itself while being cast). These truths are found in the PHB, not Twitter.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
So then Fireball does 8d6 fire damage to the point of origin? And, Booming Blade isn't compatible with warcaster?
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.
This is what I'm struggling with in this thread. It's one thing to argue the meaning when there is ambiguity in the wording. In this case, there is no ambiguity in the wording. Someone is just arguing that a spell doesn't really target what it says it targets... because of reasons?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It targets what it says. Which is (1) it’s point of origin in space, and (2) the creatures in that AOE. It does 8d6 damage to it targets (Creatures in that AOE, but also any objects if “ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried” isn’t clear enough for your purposes).
I don’t think that’s particularly hard to follow. Trying to ignore plain text and rationalize a way to pick a target for the spell without admitting it’s a target, now THATS the stretch I don’t understand.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Okay, so, we are getting somewhere. C_C agrees that the spell targets the creatures in the AOE. Starting with this new common ground we can determine a few things. That means that fireball can indeed target a creature. And, it also means, if placed correctly, that fireball can target only that one creature. Thus, it be eligible for warcaster. Why?
I don't think they are. I think that they show us exactly what the requirement is actually looking for. It is checking to see that the creature that triggered the OA and ONLY that one creature is going to be affected by the spell. If the spell is going to affect anything else? No go. Affect only that one target? Good to go.
So that's why he's clarified repeatedly, and is posted up in sage advice, that warcaster works with booming blade. So it should, similarly, work for any spell so long as that spell only targets that one creature (as in only affects that one creature).
How you read these 5 words will determine how you land on this issue.
With JCs numerous clarifications it is clear we should be reading this as: target only that creature (ie. and not any other creatures.)
Thus Fireball is eligible. Most AOEs would be if aimed properly.
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.
Literally no one has been saying fireball doesn’t target creatures.
The reason it’s not eligible for War Caster is that in no case does it ever target “only that creature,” because its primary target is a point in space, which is a target different from and in addition to that creature, which violates the “only” provision.
I wouldn't say it's ineligible because it first targets a point in space. While that might violate "targets ONLY that creature" it doesn't violate "targets only THAT creature".
Ignoring the point-in-space initial target would bring Booming Blade into alignment with JC's ruling. Interpreting the restriction as "targets that creature and no other creature (and also probably no objects please)" seems to align very well with all of the tweets.
Rather I would rule fireball ineligible due to the Invisible Pixie proposition. That is, that you must at all times assume that there are 6 invisible pixies hovering within 5 ft of a creature - and that any spell you are casting for Warcaster must be careful not to hit any of those pixies or it is not valid as a single target spell. Green-flame Blade lets you chose to forgo the flame damage you might direct at one of the pixies, so it is valid. Fireball will strike at least one pixie so it is not. Create Bonfire is ineligible because it will strike the pixie sitting on the target's shoulder, as well as the future pixie who arrives in the same space one turn later. If you cannot with absolute certainty say that your spell will not hit such a pixie then it should not be used with Warcaster.
I think I'm that guy. For me, it starts and ends with the targeting rules from page 1 of this thread.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
A reminder to all involved in a thread that repeating the same talking points ad-nauseum is not a constructive contribution to any discussion. If you are finding yourself having to repeat the same thing repeatedly., that may be a sign to step away from the conversation; both for your own benefit and to avoid being disruptive to the discussion.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Right, and fireball’s description tells you that it targets a point within range and also creatures within 20 feet of that point. Fireball is even more inarguable than other AoEs because it literally uses the word “target.”
I see the confusion--mostly my own confusion.
When you cast the spell, you obviously target a point in space. But when the spell goes off, the effect targets each creature within range. I guess you really could say that all of the above are targets of the spell, though in different ways. That seems really inconsistent with the spellcasting rules for targeting, but it is what it is. I really can't argue against that.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I do in theory agree with Texas and Rav that yes, I would love if 5E kept straight when it was talking about the targets of spells versus the targets of spell effects. I think that when the spell itself talks about its spell effects using the word ”targets”, it gets to really become swimming upstream to think that the spell itself doesn’t use the right language ... but something stinks.
I think the RAI at this point has been sufficiently cleared up over the years that 5E doesn’t split this hair and really lumps spell targets and spell effect targets together… at least spell effect targets that are being targeted on the same round and with the same action that the spell is cast. Later round targets, like the targets that you go after with vampiric touch, those may not be spell targets (even though they have quite a lot in common with the creatures that are caught in a fireball)… problems!
but then on top of that we have RAI ambiguity about what the term ”targets only one creature” means. Regent is absolutely correct that the emphasis could be that there is only one target and that target is one creature… or the emphasis could be that the spell targets only one creature no matter how many non-creature points of origins it also includes. Back when booming blade was being erratad and Jeremy Crawford tweeted that booming blade can still be used with Warcaster, that is clearly the understanding that he has, that you can target a point of origin and one creature as long as you only target one creature. well actually his understanding is that points of origin are not targets, but since that is demonstrably incorrect with explicit PHB language, I’ll assume that he still wants that result and is willing to shift his reasoning to justify that a spell that targets a point and one creature is eligible…
at the end of the day points of origin are always targets that’s a done deal.
creatures that are caught in an AOE Blast after a spell has been placed at its target point of origin should probably more accurately be considered the targets of a secondary spell effect not the targets of a spell… but it seems like the RAI is that they are indeed treated as targets of the cast spell.
creatures that are targeted by a subsequent spell effect that takes a different action or that happens on a different round outside the initial casting of the spell, the RAI seems to be that they be treated like targets of spell effects, not the targets of a spell, despite the fact that they are very mechanically similar to the targets caught in an AOE.
creatures that are directly targeted by a spell or obviously targets a spell.
and the intent of features that look for only one target of a spell is debatable, but if you believe Jeremy Crawford about Booming Blade, then an appropriately shaped Fireball would seem to be the same situation as Rav is suggesting.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
For lack of better vocabulary, I am going to differentiate between spell casting target and spell effect target. Because the spell casting target is a point in space and not a creature, I feel that fireball is not going to be valid for war caster.
However, if someone wants to say that the spell effect target is only one creature in a given circumstance and that circumstance allows fireball to work with war caster, then I suppose that is a fair interpretation of the wording even though I don't see it that way. If you cast fireball in such a way that the only creature targeted by the spell effect (the only creature forced to make a saving throw) was the one that triggered the reaction, you have satisfied the rule according to that interpretation.
I have to say that both are technically valid (and opposite) interpretations, and you should probably square this with your DM before you try it :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This was my thinking precisely.
This is certainly something to think about. An invisible pixie being there or not being there, unbeknownst to the warcaster... would either allow or not allow the spell to fire off. There is certainly a conceptual issue here, for sure. I'm not sure this conceptual issue is with just these aoe spells in question, though. For example, Ice Knife. If you try to warcaster Ice Knife, at least at my table, the secondary AOE would need to not hit additional creature. So it is, while generally considered a targeted spell that targets one creature, the fact it then pops off to hit a potentially invisible pixie is still there.
I do like this notion though. It might be an even better criteria than what warcaster actually says... for actual play. More inline with Twin Spell metamagic, requiring the spell be unable to accidentally strike a hypothetical invisible second target.
Yeah, problems indeed. But you're right, the targeting of the spell and the targeting of the spell effect is so synonymous that I'm not sure we could even create much of a case for distinguishing one from the other.
I hadn't even considered AOEs being compatible with warcaster until JC discussed booming blade errata still being eligible. There seemed to be a distinction he was making that I had previously overlooked.
Yeah, I missed it initially but this is, indeed, black and white spelled out in the Range section. In my view, this is the weirdest place to include it. Why the Range section instead of the Target section?
But it is only really weird if we lump spell targeting with spell effect targeting. The spell targeting does make sense to include in the Range section, because you're targeting the placement of the AOE. But, the effect targeting, covered elsewhere, doesn't really care about the range.
We can take fireball, for example, still. Range of 150 ft. You can target fireball itself up to 150ft away. Lets say you do, go for max range, and target it 150ft away. Well, some of that effect area is further away than the range. But you can still target the creatures in the effect area, even the ones further than the spell range. Why? because we have 2 different things doing targeting. The spell range determines the spell's AOE placement. Then the AOE determines effect targets.
"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."
Unless of course I'm totally wrong here, and casting fireball at max distance cannot actually hit those creatures in the area of the spell but who are 160ish ft away. They are very technically a target, and not in range of the spell, even if they are in range of the effect of the spell...
Yeah there seems to be some muddled interactions here in the rules with regards to this. Sometimes it distinguishes them and other times assumes they're identical.
Yeah, wanna magic missile them? No conflict in RAI or RAW whatsoever. Pew pew. This bad boy passes the invisible pixie test too.
Thank you! I'm not ever arguing how I want it to work, per se. Just how if you see it ruled one way for reasons x, y, and z, that you gotta then apply that reasoning to everything. If you can warcaster a booming blade, then you should be able to warcaster a fireball aimed carefully too. And for sure without doubt whatsoever a Lightning Bolt because it has the same exact Self(area) range format as Booming Blade does.
This does boil down to can you actually warcaster booming blade or not. If JC's advice is correct, then you can, and that point of origin target isn't what warcaster cares about. If you disagree, and point of origin target is something warcaster cares about in your view, then booming blade isn't an eligible spell, and neither would be just about any aoe for that matter.
Unfortunately, there seems to be conflicting RAI involved here too. I don't think warcaster ever intended to allow a whole host of AOE spell options. I agree there. But, JC has made his intent clear in the opposite direction, that points of origin aren't what warcaster cares about only that the spell actually affects a single creature. And, clearly the melee cantrips are supposed to work with warcaster. But, the melee cantrips are actually aoe spells since the errata so if they're eligible then aoe spells are more broadly as well. It is all a bit of a mess.
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.
And this probably is why I dislike the outcome you have argued for so much. Before BB/GFB I don't think anyone thought that AOE's were eligible but then they had to mash the language to get BB/GFB to be OK for Warcaster but not for Twinned and suddenly AOE's were good to go.
Pretty sure this has been discussed before and that the distances are separate in 5E so you would be able to hit those 160ft away. In PF2 they do it differently and the max range is also the max range for any effect.
I dont really want to quote everything here, haters gonna hate. Sorry.
JC said about range Self (XYZ). I guess he thinks of them as something else than range X(Y). Two different things.
If you ask JC I guess that's how he's going to respond.