Q480 from RAW thread extended (Lightning Arrow)

[Galithar]

Q480


On Lightning Arrow:

Does "each creature within 10 feet of the target" include the target? Logic tells me yes since they aren't specifically excluded I just want to make sure there isn't a rule I'm missing that would exclude them.
^^ The original question ^^


A 480

It doesn't include the target. The target is the source of the burst, not part of it. The target wouldn't have been part of the text if it was just a point burst. It would've read "Each creature in a 10ft radius" or something.

There's also some Sage Advice on the matter I believe.


A480: I agree with your interpretation Galithar. Unless Chaos Jackal can link what he's talking about, there's no RAW to support the origin being excluded by default. Supporting your (and my) interpretation is on page 204/205 of the PHB under the "Areas of Effect" heading, both the "cylinder" and "sphere" spell area types have the words "A cylinder's point of origin is included in the cylinder's area of effect" (or sphere in that section). Thus this general rule applies, unless the spell has something that says the "point of origin" is excluded (like the cone types do, same section), or the spell itself says so (like Word of Radiance in XGtE does) then the point of origin IS affected, as specific beats general.

I'm open to further proof on this of official rulings, but if it gets that far, I would suggest opening a new thread, so the RAW doesn't turn into a prolonged debate.

^^ This appears to be the RAW answer, regardless of any Sage Advice. Sage Advice gives RAI, but usually not RAW, though the two sometimes overlap.



Re A480

Here (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/21/does-the-splash-damage-of-lightning-arrow-affects-the-original-target/) is the relevant Sage Advice.

Also, consider the wording of a spell like Ice Knife, which specifically points out that, after the initial hit or miss, the target can take damage again. Something that Lightning Arrow doesn't explicitly mention.

Of course, SA is far from perfect, but for what it's worth that's what it states, and it does fit in with at least one different spell mentioning the target in the affected enemies.

It's still open for interpretation, but as Eriol said, if you're not satisfied you might wanna start a thread for this.

Now the argument from the Sage Advice is basically since it doesn't explicitly include the target in the AoE then it is not affected. Giving an example of Ice Knife that specifies the original target takes damage.

I counter that with partly the argument given above by Eriol I would further add that other AoE spells originating from a creature explicitly exclude the point of origin. Thunderclap for example calls out all targets in range EXCEPT for you. You are the point of origin of the spell, just as the target if Ice Knife or Lightning Arrow are their respective points of origin.
Unfortunately those are the only examples I could find, as there aren't a large number of AoEs that center on a target, rather then a point. And even Thunderclap isn't the best example because it centers on it's caster. I believe that if they make explicit mention of the caster being removed that is a point in favor of the point of origin is included by default, regardless of who it is.

This is of course further reinforced by the rules Eriol quoted.

Additionally a creature is always within 10 feet of itself. Except for maybe some philosophical magic jar shenanigans

My opinion is now that RAW the target takes the AoE damage. RAI the target doesn't.

What does the rest of the playground think? Is there a reason that the damage shouldn't affect the target from a balance perspective? It's a third level spell available only to Rangers and Bards. Bards generally have better things to snag with magical secrets if they are looking for an AoE damage spell though (like Fireball at the same level for a larger AoE).

[MrStabby]

Seems reasonable.

Rules are what's in the rulebook.

Advice is in Sage Advice.

It is good to not confuse the two.

[Chaos Jackal]

As I said when originally answering, SA is far from perfect, and as long as it doesn't end up in the Compendium it's not an official ruling either.

I see reason in both interpretations, and it's not like hitting the target twice would make Lightning Arrow broken.

Since we're in a more general opinion-giving environment now rather than the stricter one of the Q&A, I can say that RAW both would be proper, for reasons stated above.

RAI it's probably not meant to hit the target twice, but one could argue, again based on Ice Knife, that when a similar spell with less ambiguous wording was printed, it did state the target is hit twice, so why wouldn't the intention behind the original be the same? Again, it's not like Lightning Arrow is so powerful. Rather the opposite, in fact.

Bottom line, there's a decent argument no matter what you end up choosing. If your DM is the SA type (mine tend to be), you'll probably find it hard to get through. If they're not, or if you are the DM, you can assume that Lightning Arrow hits the target twice, and your explanation would be perfectly sound. I'd most likely use that myself too.

[Aett_Thorn]

Yeah, given the limitations of the spell, I find it hard to justify NOT hitting the target twice. It’s a fairly weak AoE as it is, doing decent damage only to the initial target if you hit it with both the initial strike and the AoE piece.

The only way this really ‘breaks’ anything is on a Bard really, where they can upcast it to level 9 (not saying this is a great idea), doing 4d8 + 6d8 on the initial hit, and 2d8 + 6d8 on the AoE, for a total of 18d8 damage. Still not horribly broken for a 9th level slot.

[Chaos Jackal]

Given that a bard could, say, Psychic Scream for 14d6 psychic damage and stun to ten enemies within a huge 90ft radius, 18d8 lightning on an enemy plus a much smaller amount on likely one or two more seems like a joke.

[ThePolarBear]

Now the argument from the Sage Advice is basically since it doesn't explicitly include the target in the AoE then it is not affected. Giving an example of Ice Knife that specifies the original target takes damage.

I counter that with partly the argument given above by Eriol I would further add that other AoE spells originating from a creature explicitly exclude the point of origin.

This is false, however. Spells that originate from a creature, even if the creature is simply "Self", in general state whether they include or exclude the creature. Lightning Arrow is simply missing the inclusion or exclusion mechanic that other spells do list each on their own way.

While there are few spells that have an effect around a chosen creature there are many more spells that originate from the caster that explicitly have inclusion rules for the caster as part of their description. One example above all is Bless. Yes, you do not get to choose around whom the chosen creatures are to be but it is also true that those spells do specify the caster being affected or not with apparently no way to determine a general situation by comparison.


My opinion is now that RAW the target takes the AoE damage. RAI the target doesn't.

I agree. I just do not find the "comparison" reason compelling.

[Chronos]

Is the text in Ice Knife meant as an exception to a general rule, or a clarification of an existing rule? I think more likely the latter, because the general rule already says that the origin is included.

Plus, Lightning Arrow would be really weird if the area did exclude the primary target, in the case that the attack roll missed. Then, you'd actually have the primary target, the one the arrow went right next to, taking less damage than everything around it.

[djreynolds]

So you roll lightning arrow... just like cantrip and if it hits the target... it takes 4d8.... if it misses it takes 2d8 (no save)

Everyone within 10ft of the target, rolls a dex save, and either take 2d8 or 1d8

And the range is your weapon, correct. So for a longbow, its possibly 600ft.... and even if you roll with disadvantage and miss.. the main target takes 2d8 still.

So lightning arrow could shoot out 600ft, and you are guaranteed at least 2d8

[Tanarii]

That's not Sage Advice. It's just a Crawford Tweet collected in a non-WoTC-affiliated website. it's worth considering his opinion of course, but it's not an official nor (per his own freely admitted statements) a carefully considered opinion. That's an important distinction for a DM to take into account, and has no place in thread dedicated to rules as written. (Not this thread, the other one.)

As far as points of origin: there is no global rule for if it's included or excluded. Each area of effect has its own rule. And each spell or feature area of effect states what kind of area of effect it is. If it doesn't, it's not an area of effect spells and doesn't follow any of their rules.

"Within 10ft" isn't a defined area of effect. It's a distance to each individual target from the original target. Whether or not you consider a creature to be within ten feet of itself is up to you. But let's not confuse things by talking about points of origin and the area of affect rules.

[ThePolarBear]

As far as points of origin: there is no global rule for if it's included or excluded. Each area of effect has its own rule. And each spell or feature area of effect states what kind of area of effect it is. If it doesn't, it's not an area of effect spells and doesn't follow any of their rules.

"Within 10ft" isn't a defined area of effect. It's a distance to each individual target from the original target. Whether or not you consider a creature to be within ten feet of itself is up to you. But let's not confuse things by talking about points of origin and the area of affect rules.

To be an area of effect spell a spell simply needs to cover an area and affect multiple creatures. "Each creature within 10ft" fulfills that requirement. Furthermore creatures and objects can be, explicitly, the source of such an effect.

[Dark.Revenant]

Popping in to say: Don't forget to add your Dex/Sharpshooter damage to the initial attack!

[qube]

I see a lot of people here have no understanding what RAW is.
It stands for Rules As Written.

As such: This is RAW:


A spell’s description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, Cylinder, line, or Sphere. Every area of effect has a point of Origin, a location from which the spell’s energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how you position its point of Origin. Typically, a point of Origin is a point in space, but some Spells have an area whose Origin is a creature or an object.

A spell’s effect expands in straight lines from the point of Origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of Origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn’t included in the spell’s area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover.

Anything you add to that, like weather or not "an unblocked straight line extends from the point of Origin" includes the point of origin, is RAI.

At which point... I'm sorry to burst anyone's ego here, but as far as RAI goes, while you can do anything you want at your table, for the rest of the world, Crawford's interpretation trumps that of a random player.

And sure, you can judge Crawford is wrong, but then I suppose you're also consistant ... like the sphinx's roar also damage himself, the rod of lordly might also terrifying the wielder, and the air and water elemental also hurting themselves with their engulfing attacks ...

[JumboWheat01]

I was always operating under the assumption that Lightning Arrow was a Ranger's version of Chain Lightning. You shoot something with your bow, fry it, then the lightning sparks over to other things. Not that I've taken it much in my ranger plans (only with the latest, actually,) but that's how I thought it would work.

[Galithar]

I see a lot of people here have no understanding what RAW is.
It stands for Rules As Written.

As such: This is RAW:


A spell’s description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, Cylinder, line, or Sphere. Every area of effect has a point of Origin, a location from which the spell’s energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how you position its point of Origin. Typically, a point of Origin is a point in space, but some Spells have an area whose Origin is a creature or an object.

A spell’s effect expands in straight lines from the point of Origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of Origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn’t included in the spell’s area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover.

Anything you add to that, like weather or not "an unblocked straight line extends from the point of Origin" includes the point of origin, is RAI.

At which point... I'm sorry to burst anyone's ego here, but as far as RAI goes, while you can do anything you want at your table, for the rest of the world, Crawford's interpretation trumps that of a random player.

And sure, you can judge Crawford is wrong, but then I suppose you're also consistant ... like the sphinx's roar also damage himself, the rod of lordly might also terrifying the wielder, and the air and water elemental also hurting themselves with their engulfing attacks ...

You're forgetting the part that describes the AoE shapes that says that spherical effects include their point of origin. Everything within 10 feet of X makes a sphere. Therefore RAW Lightning Arrow is a spherical area of effect and since no specific rule overrides the general rule the point of origin should be included.

Also I'd like to point out that Crawford's interpretation is often counted by many people as no more important than another random DM. For example I don't treat a Crawford ruling with any special treatment over, say a Mercer ruling. Sure he is involved in development but he isn't unflinchingly consistent in his rulings, specifically things said in Twitter from him are generally done with what appears to be no additional reading of the material or thought. He rarely cites actual rules in his responses. They're literally just his instant ruling as if he were DM and a player asked a question in the middle of a super tense scene and he needed an instant answer.

[Tanarii]

To be an area of effect spell a spell simply needs to cover an area and affect multiple creatures. "Each creature within 10ft" fulfills that requirement. Furthermore creatures and objects can be, explicitly, the source of such an effect.
PHB says an area of effect needs to say what kind of shape it is. How origins work depends on which of those shapes it is.

[qube]

Galithar ... you realise that in editing your post, you've very much proven how you don't use Rule As Written, right?

Before your edit:


Everything within 10 feet of X makes a sphere

After your edit


AoE shapes that says that spherical effects include their point of origin

And neither is RAW. RAW describes what a sphere does; as such, when we read fireball


Each creature in a 20-foot radius Sphere centered on that point

We know how it works. It doesn't say that, what which you call a spherical effect, (always) is a Sphere.

-------------
Now, for those who think this is nitpicking ... it's really not. Consider for instance
Rogues have the ability to reduce half damage of an attack
but they can't use this ability when a wizard "attacks" them with a magic missle.
One can't willy nilly aplly game terms where it suits you. Dispite as far as the english language goes, using magic missle would be considered an attack.



Also I'd like to point out that Crawford's interpretation is often counted by many people as no more important than another random DM.And many people don't care what other DMs say, they just do their own thing.

In the end, Crawford isn't another random DM, while, for instance you or me, are.

Ignoring we're not equal to Crawford, doesn't makes us equal. It makes us ostriches.

[Galithar]

Galithar ... you realise that in editing your post, you've very much proven how you don't use Rule As Written, right?

Before your edit:


Everything within 10 feet of X makes a sphere

After your edit


AoE shapes that says that spherical effects include their point of origin

And neither is RAW. RAW describes what a sphere does; as such, when we read fireball


Each creature in a 20-foot radius Sphere centered on that point

We know how it works. It doesn't say that, what which you call a spherical effect, (always) is a Sphere.

-------------
Now, for those who think this is nitpicking ... it's really not. Consider for instance
Rogues have the ability to reduce half damage of an attack
but they can't use this ability when a wizard "attacks" them with a magic missle.
One can't willy nilly aplly game terms where it suits you. Dispite as far as the english language goes, using magic missle would be considered an attack.


And many people don't care what other DMs say, they just do their own thing.

In the end, Crawford isn't another random DM, while, for instance you or me, are.

Ignoring we're not equal to Crawford, doesn't makes us equal. It makes us ostriches.


First, I didn't edit a post to say that. You are referring to two separate posts. Second 5e has inconsistent language as to create a situation where 'within ten feet of X' 'In a ten foot radius' and 'in a 10 foot radius sphere' are all used to describe the AoE effects.

I'm not trying to be pedantic and try to create a separation between game language and common English where non exists, if you want to then I'll just bow out and let you think whatever you want.

Look at Sunburst. It's clearly using a spherical AoE, but uses different language then fireball to describe it.

For your Uncanny Dodge example it doesn't work on Magic Missle because the game rules DO define what constitutes an attack and Magic Missle doesn't qualify.



The sphere’s size is expressed as a radius in feet that extends from the point.


What we have in Lightning Arrow is, a point (the target) and a radius in feet (within 10 feet). If it sounds like a sphere and looks like a sphere and acts like a sphere... Chances are it's a sphere.

This is directly opposed to the games rules on attacks which are basically, if it is specifically called an attack or if it calls for an attack roll. Magic Missle does neither of those and therefore isn't a sphere attack.

And weigh his opinion however you want, he's still just another random person. And I'm not equals to Crawford. He makes more money then me and has 0 weight at my table because he is just another random DM. Now he is one with some good rulings, and on the rare occasion where he explains the logic behind a ruling I will consider it for RAI, but it never influences any RAW decision I make. Which is what I have been talking about the whole time.

[ThePolarBear]

PHB says an area of effect needs to say what kind of shape it is.

No it doesnt. It says that "A spell's description specifies its area af effect" and "Every area of effect has a point of origin", and that "some spells have an area whose origin is a creature or an object." "Within 10 ft" describes an area. "the target" describes the point of origin. The phb doesn't require a specific shape at all but it gives some "typical" shapes that are described.


How origins work depends on which of those shapes it is.

If one of the typical shapes are given. Being typical doesn't make them exclusive.

[djreynolds]

But more importantly I never realized the range.

600ft possibly. The conjure spells have a range.

And even on a miss the target takes half damage.

[Tanarii]

No it doesnt. It says that "A spell's description specifies its area af effect" and "Every area of effect has a point of origin", and that "some spells have an area whose origin is a creature or an object." "Within 10 ft" describes an area. "the target" describes the point of origin. The phb doesn't require a specific shape at all but it gives some "typical" shapes that are described.



If one of the typical shapes are given. Being typical doesn't make them exclusive.Okay. If we accept that argument, then the answer is the behavior of the origin with regards to inclusion/exclusion is still banana. Unspecified. Since it is not a described shape, which come with a specified inclusion or exclusion of the origin. Nor does it specify.

[Eriol]

I appreciate the faithful re-posting Galithar. Good initial description, and I'm glad this was broken out of the Simple RAW thread. Too many debates happen in that thread.

All that said, while I stand by my RAW interpretation, I absolutely wouldn't go by that at all times at any table I was DMing, nor playing at. In the RAW thread Ord pointed out how Arms of Hadar doesn't have the origin exception, when it clearly should. And Ice Knife is a great example of something that IMO definitely affects the point of origin, as obviously (at least to me) an explosion affects the point of origin too! And Fireball affects everything from its point of origin as well. So there's "obvious" spells BOTH ways for this!

My point is that IMO this is something you have to adjudicate this issue on a case-by-case basis because of the loose wording of spells that go either way with it. Talk with your players (or DMs), and come up with things you agree with for each case. IMO a ruling hard either way (always affects origin point, or never does, if not specified of course) breaks things.

[Galithar]

I appreciate the faithful re-posting Galithar. Good initial description, and I'm glad this was broken out of the Simple RAW thread. Too many debates happen in that thread.

All that said, while I stand by my RAW interpretation, I absolutely wouldn't go by that at all times at any table I was DMing, nor playing at. In the RAW thread Ord pointed out how Arms of Hadar doesn't have the origin exception, when it clearly should. And Ice Knife is a great example of something that IMO definitely affects the point of origin, as obviously (at least to me) an explosion affects the point of origin too! And Fireball affects everything from its point of origin as well. So there's "obvious" spells BOTH ways for this!

My point is that IMO this is something you have to adjudicate this issue on a case-by-case basis because of the loose wording of spells that go either way with it. Talk with your players (or DMs), and come up with things you agree with for each case. IMO a ruling hard either way (always affects origin point, or never does, if not specified of course) breaks things.

Oh I absolutely agree with you there. It was kind of sloppy writing in my eyes for them to not write in the specific inclusion/exclusion of the target.

Like I said I think the intent is clear that it doesn't hit the target, but that if you follow the written rules to the letter with no room for interpretation that the target is included.

[ThePolarBear]

Okay. If we accept that argument, then the answer is the behavior of the origin with regards to inclusion/exclusion is still banana. Unspecified. Since it is not a described shape, which come with a specified inclusion or exclusion of the origin. Nor does it specify.

Yes, i agree. I already pointed out the very same thing. Some spells and features do. Others examples in other posts don't, too. I believe, (like others - if not all? - in the thread do) that the intention is for them to be excluded, too. For that to be the intended base case to build upon. I don't think that there was much discussion on that point specifically.

[djreynolds]

It seems reasonable that lightning arrow hits the target and damage him, and everyone in 10ft rolls a dex save.

I think, very humbly IMO, this isn't so much of an explosion that is happening.

I see it like, a lady threw a drink in my face (It was not my fault)... and my buddies on the bar stool also got sprayed.

Hence the "splash" damage, because the bartender (who passed their dex save and ducted down) and bartenders have evasion... came up dry.