Schools of magic aren't assigned to spells by throwing darts at a board
They 100% are. No-one can read the set of 5E spells and seriously, genuinely conclude that spell schools are handled with any sort of consistent internal logic. It's intrinsically bogus to assume that a spell's school implies any set of rules not directly interacting with spell schools.
The school helps decode how it functions behind the scenes in a less mechanical way, slightly more fluff kind of way. You're free to ignore that aspect of spell schools and it won't ruin anything about your games, but they're still interesting and useful avenues for storytelling. Maybe Bless allows the gods to subtly act through you, subtly influencing your choices and actions to arrive at better outcomes. That'd certainly qualify as an enchantment spell type effect. There is more than one way to skin a cat, just because two different spells might achieve similar goals doesn't mean they need to achieve them in the same way.
When the RAW is "DM option" then their ruling is RAW.
50 posts later, we have arrived at, "At the DM's option, this spell which normally inflicts 3d6 fire damage can instead be treated as a normal 1d6 scimitar so that you can use another 1d6 scimitar in your other hand with the two weapon fighting rules after having spent a 2nd level spell slot to create it in the first place." Even if you could take the attack action with the flame blade (which I contend you cannot) and convince your DM to treat it as a regular metal scimitar (which I contend is quite a stretch) you are left with a solution that is less useful than using the spell the way it is intended to be used and less useful than simply using two scimitars to begin with?
What is the point?
Do you simply disagree with Improvised Weapon rules? That's not really a great counter argument. I mean, I'm right there with you I think Improvised Weapons could have been handled in better ways but, regardless how we feel about them, they're pretty standard RAW rules. I can't change the fact they say, and I quote: "At the DM's option" any more than you can.
Saying it can't be swung at will is begging the question. You see that yeah? In my view it can be swung at will. Just like any other object could.
Based on what, exactly? The spell is quite clear that it requires an ad-hoc action to attack with it, which is not at all how weapon attacks or improvised weapons work. There isn't a single thing about the spell's effect that behaves like an object.
Requires an ad-hoc action? Eh, that's a stretch. It certainly offers you an ad-hoc action as an option. But I see nothing about the wording of the spell that eliminates other options you have by default. Improvised Weapons are a default option. You don't need a spell to tell you if you can use improvised weapon rules or not. You simply can, by default, because it is a default option. So, unless something says you can't use improvised weapons, you can. And this spell certainly says nothing about being unable to use improvised weapons, nor does it prevent you from taking attack actions. I really see nothing about it whatsoever that forces you to take that ad-hoc action.
Keeping fog in a tight packed sphere is pretty extreme. But that's cool. There isn't a point here. So what if evocation has a more dramatic ongoing effect? That has nothing to do with if something is an object.
As Plaguescarred pointed out, if you wanted to make the case that the spell implies it produces an object (rather than explicitly saying it, like every spell that actually does) you'd expect it to be a conjuration spell.
Naw. Conjuration is a good way to bring an object to you, but certainly isn't the only way to create one. Moreover, not all spells that can create objects explicitly state that so plainly. Nor do they always explain how the objects they create behave in all situations. DMs are expected to and empowered to make narrative rulings for how this sort of thing plays out. Can you grab a [Tooltip Not Found]? Can someone else? What if you throw one? If you grab one and walk away with it, then let go, does it fall or float back over and start orbiting again? Who knows? DMs going to have to make some calls. That is what DMs do. It is one of the strengths of D&D gameplay over a video game. Creativity and interesting outcomes as co-determined by a group of people telling an emergent story.
Schools of magic aren't assigned to spells by throwing darts at a board, and summoning things isn't part of evocation's deal. But you're right, it's circumstantial evidence at best.
Eh, that's incorrect. Evocation is summoning, explicitly so. It summons energy. That is what evocation is in D&D. Magically summoning: energy. This magical energy is being called up and brought to you from somewhere else. Often one of the inner planes. Now, this is all lore stuff, not really specifically Rule mechanics, but you can go pretty deep into the lore about this sort of thing. Many spells and effects have in-universe explanations. The notion that you cannot create an object from energy in D&D is just wrong though. Heck, you can even create creature out of energy. Look no further than a fire elemental for an example of that in action.
The fact My opinion is that neither fire nor spell effects fit the DMG's description of an object.
Not a fact. Your opinion.
You'd have a much better case with Spiritual Weapon because at least it produces something solid and that's explicitly referred to as a "spectral weapon", and that's still not considered an object by the rules.
Naw, flame blade creates: a blade. That blade is made of fire. You hold it in a free hand. You can let go of it. Therefore it is a held object. One that is similar in shape and size to a scimitar.
Honestly, if you argue it isn't an object... then ask yourself: Really, what exactly are you holding onto if not an object?
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.
Naw, flame blade creates: a blade. That blade is made of fire. You hold it in a free hand. You can let go of it. Therefore it is a held object. One that is similar in shape and size to a scimitar. Honestly, if you argue it isn't an object... then ask yourself: Really, what exactly are you holding onto if not an object?
I'm not going to mince words further. Cite the rule that you imagine proves anything you can put into your hand is automatically considered an object, because I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist, and if you can't produce some rules text to make your claim, you've got nothing.
A flame blade, is not an object, it’s a spell effect.
Suppose your PC casts flame blade and is standing there holding it, and then six seconds later my PC stands right next to you and spends a minute to cast tiny hut. Six seconds after the hut goes up a black pudding lands on the dome. (Oh no!) My PC draws their scimitar and prepares to chop at the pudding through the dome. “Wait!” Shouts your PC, “You might cut in in twain and then there will be two of them. I’ll use this.” With that, your PC slashes their flame blade at the black pudding and… absolutely nothing happens because spell effects cannot pas through the dome.
If you wanna say that the flame blade would in fact pass through that dome because it’s an “object” and not a “spell effect,” then that is absolutely fine… as a houserule in your home game. But that ain’t RAW no way no how.
If you doubt that then I kindly invite you to ask TFG:
Somewhere along the way, someone started trying to sidestep this dealbreaker by saying that "at the DM's option," this spell effect could be hand-waved into an actual metal scimitar and therefore meet the criteria for two weapon fighting. I mean, a DM can do whatever a DM wants, but it still doesn't meet the wording of the improvised weapon rules.
At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.
(emphasis mine) There has been a copious amount of polish put on this argument over the last 60 or so posts, but in the end, it still fails the first and simplest test. No object, no two weapon fighting. And let's keep in mind that is what this thread is about.
A flame blade, is not an object, it’s a spell effect.
Suppose your PC casts flame blade and is standing there holding it, and then six seconds later my PC stands right next to you and spends a minute to cast tiny hut. Six seconds after the hut goes up a black pudding lands on the dome. (Oh no!) My PC draws their scimitar and prepares to chop at the pudding through the dome. “Wait!” Shouts your PC, “You might cut in in twain and then there will be two of them. I’ll use this.” With that, your PC slashes their flame blade at the black pudding and… absolutely nothing happens because spell effects cannot pas through the dome.
If you wanna say that the flame blade would in fact pass through that dome because it’s an “object” and not a “spell effect,” then that is absolutely fine… as a houserule in your home game. But that ain’t RAW no way no how.
I'm not sure where you read that a spell effect cannot be an object, or that an object cannot be a spell effect. I assure you that is incorrect. This isn't a binary proposition. They're not mutually exclusive.
If you doubt that then I kindly invite you to ask TFG:
Have at it. I'm not a twitter faithful, the RAW speaks for itself and if the creators want to clarify something they're free to. But if you do want to tweet at the guy, by all means, ask away.
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.
They’re not saying that it can’t be an object. They’re saying that it isn’t an object because the spell doesn’t say it is. Spells that creat objects say they create objects.
They’re not saying that it can’t be an object. They’re saying that it isn’t an object because the spell doesn’t say it is. Spells that creat objects say they create objects.
Right, exactly how flame blade says as much. You create a fiery blade. A blade is an object.
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 sure where you read that a spell effect cannot be an object, or that an object cannot be a spell effect. I assure you that is incorrect. This isn't a binary proposition. They're not mutually exclusive.
This statement is true. Shadow blade is an example of a spell effect which is an object. The spell tells you as much. The spell's wording is useful as a comparison against flame blade's wording. You would be able to use two weapon fighting with the shadow blade.
They’re not saying that it can’t be an object. They’re saying that it isn’t an object because the spell doesn’t say it is. Spells that creat objects say they create objects.
Right, exactly how flame blade says as much. You create a fiery blade. A blade is an object.
I'm not sure where you read that a spell effect cannot be an object, or that an object cannot be a spell effect. I assure you that is incorrect. This isn't a binary proposition. They're not mutually exclusive.
This statement is true. Shadow blade is an example of a spell effect which is an object. The spell tells you as much. The spell's wording is useful as a comparison against flame blade's wording. You would be able to use two weapon fighting with the shadow blade.
Exactly. Both create swords in your hand. One is evoked and fiery, the other is woven of gloom. Both swords, both held in your hand. From there, their functionality differs somewhat. Both dissipate if let go of, both can be recreated in hand. One burns and sheds light, the other functions better in shadows. One explicitly has special weapon properties while the other opens up a spell attack action option for use. They're comparable in a number of ways and opposites in some others. But, without a doubt in my mind they both create swords that must be held in hand to function. Swords are objects.
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.
They’re not saying that it can’t be an object. They’re saying that it isn’t an object because the spell doesn’t say it is. Spells that creat objects say they create objects.
So just so we're clear, you're declaring the following dichotomy:
Creates an object because it uses the word "object" in the spell description.
Fire describes a process. Though to be fair, it is described as a fiery blade. But the point that a spell effect isn’t necessarily an object stands. A spell that doesn’t tell you if its effect is an object is at least up to discretion.
Shadow Blade never says “object,” if a “sword” is an object I’m failing to see why a “blade” can’t be too?
It is not the “maybe yes!” camp that is twisting the bounds of RAW to say strange and bizarre things, all Rav is saying is “if it’s an object, it’s a possible IW, and IW involve judgments by the DM to define” … which is pretty tame garden variety IW stuff. Those arguing “walls aren’t objects unless they say they are!” to keep IW at bay are far further out on a limb at this point.
Shadow Blade never says “object,” if a “sword” is an object I’m failing to see why a “blade” can’t be too?
Just to be clear, so that I don't make assumptions, are you asking me how shadow blade differs from flame blade in the way the spell manifests its effect? If so, it's actually very simple. Both spells tell you how they do what they do. In the case of shadow blade, it creates a weapon with weapon properties to let you know how you can attack with it, what kind of attack it makes, and what formula to use when figuring damage. In the case of flame blade, it creates an action to let you know how you can attack with it, what kind of attack it makes, and what formula to use when figuring damage. Things only become complicated when you try to read between the lines and do something the spell does not provide information for.
I suspect this may not be shining any new light on this discussion, and looking back at my recent previous posts, pretty much all I have done in them is clarify my position on the matter rather than offering new information. I'm not sure if there is new information for me to add to this discussion after seven pages. So with that, I have made my case for why I said what I said way back in post #62, and I have no more to say on the matter.
But the bigger point is that if a rule doesn't say something and we have to guess, who decides? Is it Rav or your game's DM?
Hmm. Curious. I'm pretty sure Rav's take IS that your DM decides. Which, hey, I totally get isn't always a satisfying answer. We want black and white yes/no right/wrong RAW rulings most of time. But, IW rules are intentionally left up to DM discretion. As I've said, If you DM says to treat it as a scimitar, they're RAW correct. If they say no you can't, they're still RAW correct. Why? Because them deciding what happens is exactly what the RAW says should happen.
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.
so, following your logic then... witch bolt is the best spell ever ! if it succeed on the attack, it guarantee that the creature can never get hidden from you, and will still show you where the invisible creature is, because it is linked by a beam of light. because witch bolt doesn'T require line of sight. thats much more then what the spell says it does.
you can'T start saying RAW the spell creates an object because it seems like it does... the words that are there are RAW. meaning the words are the authority. if the word is not there, then its not doing that. at that point you are not playing RAW. you are playing RAI. meaning you play as "interpretted" interpretted changes from person to person. thats why most people don't like it. RAW is the same for everyone. RAI is changing as much as there are people in the world. there is another RAI which is "As Intended" this is what most people think RAI is, but thats not really what it was at first.
for my part, i play as intended, not interpretted, not written. but intended by jeremy crawford !
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
so, following your logic then... witch bolt is the best spell ever ! if it succeed on the attack, it guarantee that the creature can never get hidden from you, and will still show you where the invisible creature is, because it is linked by a beam of light. because witch bolt doesn'T require line of sight. thats much more then what the spell says it does.
PHB Chapter 11 provides a general rule that spells require line of effect to their targets, but no, spells do not require "sight" of the target unless they specify they do. Witch Bolt targets "a creature within range," not "a creature you can see within range," so yes, you can cast it at an Invisible enemy (likely making your attack with Disadvantage at the very least, but possibly also even requiring to guess which square the enemy is in if they truly are entirely Hidden from you). If the DM determines that "a sustained arc of lightning between you and the target" creates a situation not suitable for the creature to be able to Hide, PHB Chapter 7 suggests that might be good cause them to be automatically revealed and prevent them from further attempts to Hide, but do note that that same section of PHB 7 would also suggest that an Invisible creature "can always try to Hide" no matter what (which apparently some folks consider not RAI, shrug), so I personally would not prevent the enemy from staying hidden or hiding on future rounds, just perhaps give the player Advantage on their Search checks to find it/+5 on their passive Perception scores to oppose its Hide attempts while the spell is up.
There's no reason to get up in arms. Spells do what they say they do, so Witch Bolt does indeed create a "sustained arc of lightning" (which is probably visible), but that's hardly a disaster.
so, following your logic then... witch bolt is the best spell ever ! if it succeed on the attack, it guarantee that the creature can never get hidden from you, and will still show you where the invisible creature is, because it is linked by a beam of light. because witch bolt doesn'T require line of sight. thats much more then what the spell says it does.
PHB Chapter 11 provides a general rule that spells require line of effect to their targets, but no, spells do not require "sight" of the target unless they specify they do. Witch Bolt targets "a creature within range," not "a creature you can see within range," so yes, you can cast it at an Invisible enemy (likely making your attack with Disadvantage at the very least, but possibly also even requiring to guess which square the enemy is in if they truly are entirely Hidden from you). If the DM determines that "a sustained arc of lightning between you and the target" creates a situation not suitable for the creature to be able to Hide, PHB Chapter 7 suggests that might be good cause them to be automatically revealed and prevent them from further attempts to Hide, but do note that that same section of PHB 7 would also suggest that an Invisible creature "can always try to Hide" no matter what (which apparently some folks consider not RAI, shrug), so I personally would not prevent the enemy from staying hidden or hiding on future rounds, just perhaps give the player Advantage on their Search checks to find it/+5 on their passive Perception scores to oppose its Hide attempts while the spell is up.
There's no reason to get up in arms. Spells do what they say they do, so Witch Bolt does indeed create a "sustained arc of lightning" (which is probably visible), but that's hardly a disaster.
except that within that logic of yours, you are doing things that aren'tpart of the spell. meaning it reveals invisible creatures if it hits them. that was my point. RAW the spell do not do this, but following your reasoning it does because it links the creature with an arc. so again.. yes you are reaching with your spells not saying they create an object and thus creates them because you think they do.
honestly you seem to go from RAW to RAI just for sakes of argument and just ignore one or the other when it pleases you, which makes us wary to follow your reasoning because it has no rime or reason since you just change from RAW and RAI each argument.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
so, following your logic then... witch bolt is the best spell ever ! if it succeed on the attack, it guarantee that the creature can never get hidden from you, and will still show you where the invisible creature is
The school helps decode how it functions behind the scenes in a less mechanical way, slightly more fluff kind of way. You're free to ignore that aspect of spell schools and it won't ruin anything about your games, but they're still interesting and useful avenues for storytelling. Maybe Bless allows the gods to subtly act through you, subtly influencing your choices and actions to arrive at better outcomes. That'd certainly qualify as an enchantment spell type effect. There is more than one way to skin a cat, just because two different spells might achieve similar goals doesn't mean they need to achieve them in the same way.
Do you simply disagree with Improvised Weapon rules? That's not really a great counter argument. I mean, I'm right there with you I think Improvised Weapons could have been handled in better ways but, regardless how we feel about them, they're pretty standard RAW rules. I can't change the fact they say, and I quote: "At the DM's option" any more than you can.
Requires an ad-hoc action? Eh, that's a stretch. It certainly offers you an ad-hoc action as an option. But I see nothing about the wording of the spell that eliminates other options you have by default. Improvised Weapons are a default option. You don't need a spell to tell you if you can use improvised weapon rules or not. You simply can, by default, because it is a default option. So, unless something says you can't use improvised weapons, you can. And this spell certainly says nothing about being unable to use improvised weapons, nor does it prevent you from taking attack actions. I really see nothing about it whatsoever that forces you to take that ad-hoc action.
Naw. Conjuration is a good way to bring an object to you, but certainly isn't the only way to create one. Moreover, not all spells that can create objects explicitly state that so plainly. Nor do they always explain how the objects they create behave in all situations. DMs are expected to and empowered to make narrative rulings for how this sort of thing plays out. Can you grab a [Tooltip Not Found]? Can someone else? What if you throw one? If you grab one and walk away with it, then let go, does it fall or float back over and start orbiting again? Who knows? DMs going to have to make some calls. That is what DMs do. It is one of the strengths of D&D gameplay over a video game. Creativity and interesting outcomes as co-determined by a group of people telling an emergent story.
Eh, that's incorrect. Evocation is summoning, explicitly so. It summons energy. That is what evocation is in D&D. Magically summoning: energy. This magical energy is being called up and brought to you from somewhere else. Often one of the inner planes. Now, this is all lore stuff, not really specifically Rule mechanics, but you can go pretty deep into the lore about this sort of thing. Many spells and effects have in-universe explanations. The notion that you cannot create an object from energy in D&D is just wrong though. Heck, you can even create creature out of energy. Look no further than a fire elemental for an example of that in action.
Not a fact. Your opinion.
Naw, flame blade creates: a blade. That blade is made of fire. You hold it in a free hand. You can let go of it. Therefore it is a held object. One that is similar in shape and size to a scimitar.
Honestly, if you argue it isn't an object... then ask yourself: Really, what exactly are you holding onto if not an object?
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.
Hey, I'm not the one making rules up.
I'm not going to mince words further. Cite the rule that you imagine proves anything you can put into your hand is automatically considered an object, because I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist, and if you can't produce some rules text to make your claim, you've got nothing.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
A flame blade, is not an object, it’s a spell effect.
Suppose your PC casts flame blade and is standing there holding it, and then six seconds later my PC stands right next to you and spends a minute to cast tiny hut. Six seconds after the hut goes up a black pudding lands on the dome. (Oh no!) My PC draws their scimitar and prepares to chop at the pudding through the dome. “Wait!” Shouts your PC, “You might cut in in twain and then there will be two of them. I’ll use this.” With that, your PC slashes their flame blade at the black pudding and… absolutely nothing happens because spell effects cannot pas through the dome.
If you wanna say that the flame blade would in fact pass through that dome because it’s an “object” and not a “spell effect,” then that is absolutely fine… as a houserule in your home game. But that ain’t RAW no way no how.
If you doubt that then I kindly invite you to ask TFG:
https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford?lang=en
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Right?
Somewhere along the way, someone started trying to sidestep this dealbreaker by saying that "at the DM's option," this spell effect could be hand-waved into an actual metal scimitar and therefore meet the criteria for two weapon fighting. I mean, a DM can do whatever a DM wants, but it still doesn't meet the wording of the improvised weapon rules.
(emphasis mine) There has been a copious amount of polish put on this argument over the last 60 or so posts, but in the end, it still fails the first and simplest test. No object, no two weapon fighting. And let's keep in mind that is what this thread is about.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I'm not sure where you read that a spell effect cannot be an object, or that an object cannot be a spell effect. I assure you that is incorrect. This isn't a binary proposition. They're not mutually exclusive.
Have at it. I'm not a twitter faithful, the RAW speaks for itself and if the creators want to clarify something they're free to. But if you do want to tweet at the guy, by all means, ask away.
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.
They’re not saying that it can’t be an object. They’re saying that it isn’t an object because the spell doesn’t say it is. Spells that creat objects say they create objects.
Right, exactly how flame blade says as much. You create a fiery blade. A blade is an object.
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 statement is true. Shadow blade is an example of a spell effect which is an object. The spell tells you as much. The spell's wording is useful as a comparison against flame blade's wording. You would be able to use two weapon fighting with the shadow blade.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
And fire isn’t an object.
Exactly. Both create swords in your hand. One is evoked and fiery, the other is woven of gloom. Both swords, both held in your hand. From there, their functionality differs somewhat. Both dissipate if let go of, both can be recreated in hand. One burns and sheds light, the other functions better in shadows. One explicitly has special weapon properties while the other opens up a spell attack action option for use. They're comparable in a number of ways and opposites in some others. But, without a doubt in my mind they both create swords that must be held in hand to function. Swords are objects.
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.
Citation needed.
So just so we're clear, you're declaring the following dichotomy:
I am especially keen on hearing your explanation for how Bones of the Earth doesn't make an object.
Fire describes a process. Though to be fair, it is described as a fiery blade. But the point that a spell effect isn’t necessarily an object stands. A spell that doesn’t tell you if its effect is an object is at least up to discretion.
Shadow Blade never says “object,” if a “sword” is an object I’m failing to see why a “blade” can’t be too?
It is not the “maybe yes!” camp that is twisting the bounds of RAW to say strange and bizarre things, all Rav is saying is “if it’s an object, it’s a possible IW, and IW involve judgments by the DM to define” … which is pretty tame garden variety IW stuff. Those arguing “walls aren’t objects unless they say they are!” to keep IW at bay are far further out on a limb at this point.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
But the bigger point is that if a rule doesn't say something and we have to guess, who decides? Is it Rav or your game's DM?
I wouldn't say a fiery blade is an object any more than a lightsaber blade is. The game doesn't tell me it has to be.
Just to be clear, so that I don't make assumptions, are you asking me how shadow blade differs from flame blade in the way the spell manifests its effect? If so, it's actually very simple. Both spells tell you how they do what they do. In the case of shadow blade, it creates a weapon with weapon properties to let you know how you can attack with it, what kind of attack it makes, and what formula to use when figuring damage. In the case of flame blade, it creates an action to let you know how you can attack with it, what kind of attack it makes, and what formula to use when figuring damage. Things only become complicated when you try to read between the lines and do something the spell does not provide information for.
I suspect this may not be shining any new light on this discussion, and looking back at my recent previous posts, pretty much all I have done in them is clarify my position on the matter rather than offering new information. I'm not sure if there is new information for me to add to this discussion after seven pages. So with that, I have made my case for why I said what I said way back in post #62, and I have no more to say on the matter.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Hmm. Curious. I'm pretty sure Rav's take IS that your DM decides. Which, hey, I totally get isn't always a satisfying answer. We want black and white yes/no right/wrong RAW rulings most of time. But, IW rules are intentionally left up to DM discretion. As I've said, If you DM says to treat it as a scimitar, they're RAW correct. If they say no you can't, they're still RAW correct. Why? Because them deciding what happens is exactly what the RAW says should happen.
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.
so, following your logic then... witch bolt is the best spell ever !
if it succeed on the attack, it guarantee that the creature can never get hidden from you, and will still show you where the invisible creature is, because it is linked by a beam of light. because witch bolt doesn'T require line of sight. thats much more then what the spell says it does.
you can'T start saying RAW the spell creates an object because it seems like it does... the words that are there are RAW. meaning the words are the authority. if the word is not there, then its not doing that. at that point you are not playing RAW. you are playing RAI. meaning you play as "interpretted" interpretted changes from person to person. thats why most people don't like it. RAW is the same for everyone. RAI is changing as much as there are people in the world. there is another RAI which is "As Intended" this is what most people think RAI is, but thats not really what it was at first.
for my part, i play as intended, not interpretted, not written. but intended by jeremy crawford !
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
PHB Chapter 11 provides a general rule that spells require line of effect to their targets, but no, spells do not require "sight" of the target unless they specify they do. Witch Bolt targets "a creature within range," not "a creature you can see within range," so yes, you can cast it at an Invisible enemy (likely making your attack with Disadvantage at the very least, but possibly also even requiring to guess which square the enemy is in if they truly are entirely Hidden from you). If the DM determines that "a sustained arc of lightning between you and the target" creates a situation not suitable for the creature to be able to Hide, PHB Chapter 7 suggests that might be good cause them to be automatically revealed and prevent them from further attempts to Hide, but do note that that same section of PHB 7 would also suggest that an Invisible creature "can always try to Hide" no matter what (which apparently some folks consider not RAI, shrug), so I personally would not prevent the enemy from staying hidden or hiding on future rounds, just perhaps give the player Advantage on their Search checks to find it/+5 on their passive Perception scores to oppose its Hide attempts while the spell is up.
There's no reason to get up in arms. Spells do what they say they do, so Witch Bolt does indeed create a "sustained arc of lightning" (which is probably visible), but that's hardly a disaster.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
except that within that logic of yours, you are doing things that aren'tpart of the spell. meaning it reveals invisible creatures if it hits them.
that was my point. RAW the spell do not do this, but following your reasoning it does because it links the creature with an arc. so again.. yes you are reaching with your spells not saying they create an object and thus creates them because you think they do.
honestly you seem to go from RAW to RAI just for sakes of argument and just ignore one or the other when it pleases you, which makes us wary to follow your reasoning because it has no rime or reason since you just change from RAW and RAI each argument.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
FWIW When i did a thread about Hide vs Grappled to check other's opinion if hiding while knowing's one position was possible, i had mixed results https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/118130-hide-vs-grapple