Targeting "Aid"

[Cicciograna]

Hello guys, last night saw a bit of disquisition on the targeting of the spell Aid. The spell description says that:


Your spell bolsters your allies with toughness and resolve. Choose up to three creatures within range.

Emphasis mine. So, my DM said that the spell cannot target the caster, since it explicitly mentions your allies, whereas I claimed that not only oneself is indeed a creature within range, but technically the caster can be considered "allied with himself".

Note, the discussion was absolutely in good spirit, we didn't argue, and in the end I didn't want to undermine in any way his authority on the game, so what he decides goes for me; however, I'd like to hear your opinions on this.

[Vingelot]

I'd agree with your DM. Not only does the spell mention allies, but it's also called "Aid". And you typically aid others, not yourself.

[darknite]

You are correct. There is no penalty for including your own PC in an Aid spell. Your PC is a creature. The allies part has nothing to do with targetting the spell.

[DMThac0]

I can see both sides of this argument, and both are pretty decent arguments.

As a DM, I'd have to rule in favor of a stricter interpretation of the rules as well. There is the ambiguity in that it allows you to target up to 3 creatures which leads one to consider any 3 creatures. However, as was stated above, it is a spell which has a name that implies doing something beyond ones self, as well as the term allies.

[Waazraath]

page 204, PHB "if a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can target yourself"

[hymer]

Since I don't care much one way or the other, I'd rule it to let the caster include themself - err on the side of generosity sortofthing. If asked to provide textual reasoning, I'd say that the spell does indeed target your allies either way, and so it does as the first sentence says. That sentence need not preclude casting on yourself, especially given the following sentence. But you could make the opposite argument, of course.

Edit:

page 204, PHB "if a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can target yourself"
This is a pertinent point, and I agree with it. But it could still be countered with a litle contrariness: Aid targets three creatures, not one, and the targets are further specified in the first sentence. Specific trumps general.

[mephnick]

AFAIK you've always been considered within "allies" in previous editions. Plus, the first sentence is fluff and the second sentence is what actually matters. Uh oh here comes the fluff/mechanics war

[Cicciograna]

There's only one con against the possibility to cast the spell unto oneself, and that's the fact that the Bless spell has very similar casting conditions BUT does not include the "your allies" clause.
Anyway, I can see how this is somewhat ambiguous.

[Citan]

Hello guys, last night saw a bit of disquisition on the targeting of the spell Aid. The spell description says that:



Emphasis mine. So, my DM said that the spell cannot target the caster, since it explicitly mentions your allies, whereas I claimed that not only oneself is indeed a creature within range, but technically the caster can be considered "allied with himself".

Note, the discussion was absolutely in good spirit, we didn't argue, and in the end I didn't want to undermine in any way his authority on the game, so what he decides goes for me; however, I'd like to hear your opinions on this.
You are perfectly right. First line is fluff, second is mechanics.
Mechanics require to target "creatures that you can see", and...
1) It has been clarified many times (don't remember if just PHB is enough or if there was some Errata/SA published) that YOU are (usually ^^) a creature that you can see.
2) As a further point, several spells which want to exclude you from potential targeting write black on white "creature other than you").



I'd agree with your DM. Not only does the spell mention allies, but it's also called "Aid". And you typically aid others, not yourself.
This is a DM houserule, unnecessarily nerfing the spell. But hey, as long as you warn players about it in session 0, it's your game, your rules. :=)

[Kadzar]

Since I don't care much one way or the other, I'd rule it to let the caster include themself - err on the side of generosity sortofthing. If asked to provide textual reasoning, I'd say that the spell does indeed target your allies either way, and so it does as the first sentence says. That sentence need not preclude casting on yourself, especially given the following sentence. But you could make the opposite argument, of course.

Edit:

This is a pertinent point, and I agree with it. But it could still be countered with a litle contrariness: Aid targets three creatures, not one, and the targets are further specified in the first sentence. Specific trumps general.
Up to three creatures. So anywhere between one and three.

[hymer]

Up to three creatures. So anywhere between one and three.
I commend your pedantry. /applause

[willdaBEAST]

I agree with the sentiment that you can cast Aid on yourself, I see no reason to prevent that.

The most interesting thing I find about Aid is that it can be cast on any creature within 30 ft and it's one of the few spells where you don't need to see your target. RAW it seems like you should be able to cast it through a wall. How would people rule that? If there's no way the caster could know where a creature is, but it's within 30 ft, do you allow it to benefit from Aid?

[mephnick]

The most interesting thing I find about Aid is that it can be cast on any creature within 30 ft and it's one of the few spells where you don't need to see your target.

All spells require line of sight to a target, don't they? It's in the general spellcasting rules.

[DMThac0]

All spells require line of sight to a target, don't they? It's in the general spellcasting rules.

teleport, dimension door, plane shift, fireball, and that blasted druid spell that makes lightning rain down on my well designed fortification and thwarting all my plans.....

Line of sight is necessary for a majority of spells, but not all.

[mephnick]

teleport, dimension door, plane shift, fireball, and that blasted druid spell that makes lightning rain down on my well designed fortification and thwarting all my plans.....

Line of sight is necessary for a majority of spells, but not all.

Sorry...all spells that target a creature. Obviously AoE doesn't require you to see a creature, but it does require line of sight to the point of impact.

You can't just buff people that you can't see.

[DMThac0]

Sorry...all spells that target a creature. Obviously AoE doesn't require you to see a creature, but it does require line of sight to the point of impact.

You can't just buff people that you can't see.

I apologize if I came off pedantic. You are correct, to the best of my knowledge, spells that target creatures require being able to see the target.

[zinycor]

Sorry...all spells that target a creature. Obviously AoE doesn't require you to see a creature, but it does require line of sight to the point of impact.

You can't just buff people that you can't see.

The spell does have vocal requirements, maybe the creatures hearing the spell couId be enough.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Note that there is not a general LoS requirement. Many spells (IIRC a majority of non-self target ones) include a line like "targets you can see". If it doesn't, you don't need to see the target. You need a clear path, but not vision.

[Malifice]

page 204, PHB "if a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can target yourself"

This. The DM was wrong.

[Pex]

I'd agree with your DM. Not only does the spell mention allies, but it's also called "Aid". And you typically aid others, not yourself.

It's the cleric's deity doing the aiding through the spell, not the cleric if you want to be so ornery about the name of the spell.