Find steed Spell: question about target self

[Seruvius]

Good day fellow Playgrounders.

A Paladin in a game i DM has recently got himself a shiny new mount thanks to the find steed spell. Now the issue is this part of the spell: "While mounted on your steed, you can make any spell you cast that targets only you also target your steed. "

With spells like say misty step it makes sense to me. you target yourself, and your steed comes with you. No problem. However the Paladin wanted to use smite spells on himself and his steed, effectively doubling the effect. I let it pass during the session, but I'm unsure of my ruling. On the one hand, the range is self; On the other hand, it is effecting your weapon, not yourself. The text in smite spells also always contains the phrase:"The first time you hit with a melee weapon attack during this spell's duration, etc." Do the hoves of a horse, horns of an elk etc. count as a melee weapon attack?

If this is RAW and RAI, it seems a rather cheap and effective way to get double power out of smite spells, until the enemies just keep nuking your mount on turn 1 to stop such shenanigans of course.

[Talamare]

You can't attack with a mount while riding it, and it's intended for buffs

[hymer]

Do the hoves of a horse, horns of an elk etc. count as a melee weapon attack?

They do. Look at their stat blocks, and you'll find something like this:

Hooves. Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: X (2dY+Z) bludgeoning damage.

[Seruvius]

You can't attack with a mount while riding it, and it's intended for buffs

While I would normally agree with you for most mounts, PHB 198 specifically says "Intelligent creatures, such as dragons, act independantly." The find steed spell sets your mounts intelligence to at least 6. The lowest int on a dragon is 5 on a white wyrmling, but even a young white dragon (large creature) has int 6. Other examples that come to mind: Ogres are 5, Minotaurs 6 and Orcs 7 respectively. If dragons are specifically called out as being smart enough to do their own thing, why should my players int 6 magic steed be any different? (or so his argument roughly went to me to be allowed to attack with both).

I understand that it is intended for buffs, but there is always RAW and RAI. Teleporting with your horse, or making its attacks magical is one thing. Effectively twinning say thunderous smite as a level 5 paladin for 4d6 and 2 str saves (which is what happened in my game) is a different issue IMO. Hence my query.




They do. Look at their stat blocks, and you'll find something like this:

Hooves. Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: X (2dY+Z) bludgeoning damage.

Fair point. I apparently had a derp and missed the melee weapon part, instead just seeing hooves and attack. Well done me =P.

[DivisibleByZero]

You have stated the answer to your own question, you just don't realize it.
1) You can only share spells which TARGET only yourself.
2) Smite spells have a RANGE of self.

Do you see the problem here?
Range and target are two different things.
Smite spells are self only, yes.... but they don't TARGET you, they target a different creature, which is the target of the attack. Read the spell descriptions, and you'll see that they specifically refer to targets.

Range of self means that the Caster is either the target, or the point of origin (PHB, page 202 or 203 or something like that).
In this case, for smite spells, he's the point of origin. He doesn't take the effects of the spell, so he isn't the target. The creature struck by his attack takes the effect of the spell, so that creature is the target.

Smite spells cannot be shared.

[E’Tallitnics]

While mounted the Steed is always a controlled mount: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/10/06/find-steed-spell-intelligence/.

I've DM'ed, and am currently playing a Paladin w/ Steed, and trust me when I say that requiring the 'controlled mount' stipulation to be followed will greatly simplify your combat encounters.

If the player wants their mount to attack they'll need to dismount.

The spell does not state that increasing the beasts Intelligence to 6 makes it an intelligent mount, the spell does state that the Paladin can now communicate with their steed.

How this spell works has been hotly debated across many forums, so you're likely to find a ton of arguments supporting almost any point of view.

However the spell, as written, leaves a lot up to the DM. Don't be afraid to set limits!

At my table the steed is always controlled while mounted and the spell must target the Paladin.

[DivisibleByZero]

How this spell works has been hotly debated across many forums, so you're likely to find a ton of arguments supporting almost any point of view.

However the spell, as written, leaves a lot up to the DM.

It's only debated by people that want to game the system or people that can't understand that range and target are different things. It doesn't leave anything up to the DM.
The spell descriptions specifically mention targets, and when they do so they aren't talking about the caster, so the Caster isn't the target.
Range and Target are two different things.
By both the RAW and the RAI, Smite spells cannot be shared.
Period.
Anything else is an houserule which directly contradicts the rules for sharing spells stated within the Find Steed spell.

[MaxWilson]

While mounted the Steed is always a controlled mount: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/10/06/find-steed-spell-intelligence/.

Posting that link just undermines the credibility of Sage Advice even further, since (1) Jeremy gives a muddled answer, and (2) the muddled answer is in apparent conflict with the plain text of the PHB. Intelligent mounts always act independently.

I agree with those who say smite spells cannot be shared, for the reason given: the paladin is not the target of the smite spell, according to the spell text.

[Segev]

The trouble with the "range self is not target self" argument is that any target outside yourself is, by definition, out of range, and thus an invalid target. So if "range: self" spells have a target of the spell other than the caster, the spell fails for the same reason that trying to cast eldrich blast on somebody 2000 ft. away does: the target is out of range.

[Talamare]

Mounted Combat is the most broken aspect of DnD
It isn't clear if mounts get their own turns or use yours
If they get their own actions or if they use yours
If they use an action to disengage or dodge, does it affect both you and the mount, or just the mount
If they are independent, do they get an entire turn or not?

Mounted Combat is already a broken aspect of DnD, unless they fix it in 6e I suggest you treat it like this
Simple style
-While mounted, it "stop existing" and increases your speed
-Assumes you never fall off, nothing can attack or damage it, and there is no benefit or penalties other than increasing your speed
-Mounted Combat feat does nothing

Complex
-It's a creature that can be attacked and damaged as normal
-Getting proned, paralyzed, stunned etc. Forces a check to see if you fall off
-If the mount takes damage, it must pass a "concentration" save. If it fails, you need to roll to fall off
-It has no action, and only increases your speed.
-It does not provoke reactions.

[bid]

However the Paladin wanted to use smite spells on himself and his steed, effectively doubling the effect.

Possible rulings:
- Nope.
- Only if you target yourself, in which case both you and your steed receive 2d6 radiant damage.
- If you hit with your steed's hoof, the spell goes off and is discharged. Same as with an offhand weapon.
And the ultimate:
- Ok, but I'll have to rebalance the fights to bring back the challenge. I'll add an extra target or 2 to keep your steed busy.

Oh really, you want your steed to act independently?
- It's your steed's turn, do its move and action.
- Now it's your turn, do your action. You may dismount if you want to move.

[DivisibleByZero]

The trouble with the "range self is not target self" argument is that any target outside yourself is, by definition, out of range, and thus an invalid target. So if "range: self" spells have a target of the spell other than the caster, the spell fails for the same reason that trying to cast eldrich blast on somebody 2000 ft. away does: the target is out of range.

Except it isn't an issue at all.
Range Self, as described by the rules for spellcasting, means that the Caster is either the target or the point of origin. In this case, since the spell description clearly tells you that the target is the creature attacked, then obviously the Caster is not the target, but rather the point of origin.
The range is Self because the spell effect originates from the caster, and it affects a creature that the Caster hits with a melee attack. That melee attack can have a range of 5' or 10' or however long is available to the caster.
So once again, Range and Target are two different things.
The spells Range is Self, because the Caster is the point of origin.
The Target is a creature attacked in melee by the Caster, and that creature can be anywhere within the Caster's melee range.

By your line of reasoning, spells such as Cone of Cold simply dont work, and only hit you. Because, you know, it has a Range of Self.
You see, with those spells, the Target is clearly defined within the spell's description, just as it is in this case.... because in both cases the Caster is the Pont of Origin, and NOT the Target.
Range =/= Target.

[E’Tallitnics]

It's only debated by people that want to game the system or people that can't understand that range and target are different things. It doesn't leave anything up to the DM.
The spell descriptions specifically mention targets, and when they do so they aren't talking about the caster, so the Caster isn't the target.
Range and Target are two different things.
By both the RAW and the RAI, Smite spells cannot be shared.
Period.
Anything else is an houserule which directly contradicts the rules for sharing spells stated within the Find Steed spell.

You missed the point. I was referring to the Find Steed spell.

[E’Tallitnics]

Posting that link just undermines the credibility of Sage Advice even further, since (1) Jeremy gives a muddled answer, and (2) the muddled answer is in apparent conflict with the plain text of the PHB. Intelligent mounts always act independently.

I agree with those who say smite spells cannot be shared, for the reason given: the paladin is not the target of the smite spell, according to the spell text.

The link was to illustrate that RAI the steed is always a controlled mount. That's why I further pointed out that the spell does grant communication, but does not grant intelligent mount status.

[DivisibleByZero]

You missed the point. I was referring to the Find Steed spell.

I missed nothing. You are actually the one that seemed to miss the point, that point being the actual question that was asked by the OP. Find Steed is where Share Spells is included. Sharing spells is what the question was about.
The rules for Sharing those spells are clearly defined within the Find Steed spell.
Smite spells cannot be shared. Anyone that argues they can is either intentionally trying to game the system or doesn't understand that Range and Target are two different things.

[Arkhios]

I have no rules lawyering to back this up, but in all honesty, in my opinion, the wording of Find Steed and how it relates to other spells is largely a matter of common sense.
I wouldn't mind if a player cast a smite spell to affect both his paladin or the paladin's mount. However, common sense tells me that it's still the same (one) spell effect. In essence, the next time you, or your mount, hit with a melee weapon attack, the effect discharges, no matter whether the paladin or the mount scored the hit.
Another point to consider: a smite spell requires a concentration; its duration isn't instantaneous, so the effect doesn't happen immediately after casting.
To my understanding, one Cure Wounds could heal both the paladin and the steed, as the spell affects the target immediately. As written, any spell that targets only the caster, also affects the steed. It's still the same (one) spell and same (one) effect.
So, in other words:
The "trigger and effect" of a smite spell is equally same (one) effect, and its trigger can happen only once per spell.
The spell targets only the paladin (and his mount) but the spell's effect determines the trigger to discharge the secondary effect (which is damage and/or other effect).

I hope this made sense.

[DivisibleByZero]

I have no rules lawyering to back this up, but [snip]
I hope this made sense.

Read the description for literally any of the smite spells. They all, in every single case, explicitly use the word "Target" when referring to the subject of the Paladin's melee attack.
The Pally is not the target.
The spell text makes this perfectly, 100%, crystal clear, with zero room for error or interpretation.
The Paladin is absolutely not the target, and as such, by both RAW and RAI, the smite spells may not be shared.

[Seruvius]

I have no rules lawyering to back this up, but in all honesty, in my opinion, the wording of Find Steed and how it relates to other spells is largely a matter of common sense.
I wouldn't mind if a player cast a smite spell to affect both his paladin or the paladin's mount. However, common sense tells me that it's still the same (one) spell effect. In essence, the next time you, or your mount, hit with a melee weapon attack, the effect discharges, no matter whether the paladin or the mount scored the hit.
Another point to consider: a smite spell requires a concentration; its duration isn't instantaneous, so the effect doesn't happen immediately after casting.
To my understanding, one Cure Wounds could heal both the paladin and the steed, as the spell affects the target immediately. As written, any spell that targets only the caster, also affects the steed. It's still the same (one) spell and same (one) effect.
So, in other words:
The "trigger and effect" of a smite spell is equally same (one) effect, and its trigger can happen only once per spell.
The spell targets only the paladin (and his mount) but the spell's effect determines the trigger to discharge the secondary effect (which is damage and/or other effect).

I hope this made sense.


Read the description for literally any of the smite spells. They all, in every single case, explicitly use the word "Target" when referring to the subject of the Paladin's melee attack.
The Pally is not the target.
The spell text makes this perfectly, 100%, crystal clear, with zero room for error or interpretation.
The Paladin is absolutely not the target, and as such, by both RAW and RAI, the smite spells may not be shared.

Thank you two in particular for your interesting debate on the matter. I think I find myself leaning more towards Divisible's point myself. The comparison with cone of cold was, in particular, apt. Range may be self, but the target is not. Target is called out in the detail text, rather than the statblock of the spell, which I believe is part of the confusion surrounding the spell. In future however, if my Paladin really wants his horse to deliver his smite, I'm fine with that, but he is sharing the spell not twinning it. As soon as 1 "X smite" powered attack hits, the spell discharges and puff spell has been used.

With the whole mount taking own turn, I feel like one of the key points of find steed is that it is Intelligent and hence should get its own independant movement/action/eetc. on top of those the player gets, in the same Initiative bracket as the PC. Worst case, if he abuses it, ill just start targeting his mount. AC11 and 19HP do not a frontline mount make.

[Segev]

Except it isn't an issue at all.
Range Self, as described by the rules for spellcasting, means that the Caster is either the target or the point of origin. In this case, since the spell description clearly tells you that the target is the creature attacked, then obviously the Caster is not the target, but rather the point of origin.
The range is Self because the spell effect originates from the caster, and it affects a creature that the Caster hits with a melee attack. That melee attack can have a range of 5' or 10' or however long is available to the caster.
So once again, Range and Target are two different things.
The spells Range is Self, because the Caster is the point of origin.
The Target is a creature attacked in melee by the Caster, and that creature can be anywhere within the Caster's melee range.

By your line of reasoning, spells such as Cone of Cold simply dont work, and only hit you. Because, you know, it has a Range of Self.
You see, with those spells, the Target is clearly defined within the spell's description, just as it is in this case.... because in both cases the Caster is the Pont of Origin, and NOT the Target.
Range =/= Target.
Cone of cold is an interesting counter-point, but it is worth noting that it says "Self (60-ft. cone)," which suggests they knew "Self" was insufficient to provide the 'range' needed. Just looking at wrathful smite as an example of what I believe is being discussed here, nowhere does it state that the creature you hit with your attack is the "target" of the spell. It says that the next creature you hit with an attack takes more damage. That can very easily be seen as a buff targeting you. Just as enlarge targets a creature within 30 feet and causes its weapons to deal 1d4 extra damage, but does not target the creatures hit with those weapons (yet nonetheless causes more damage to be dealt to them).

Still, I understand where you're coming from. I just don't agree that it is correct to say that a spell which targets "Self" and causes some other action you take to have increased or even different-than-normal effect on others means those who are the targets of that action are also the targets of the spell.

[Arkhios]

Thank you two in particular for your interesting debate on the matter. I think I find myself leaning more towards Divisible's point myself. The comparison with cone of cold was, in particular, apt. Range may be self, but the target is not. Target is called out in the detail text, rather than the statblock of the spell, which I believe is part of the confusion surrounding the spell. In future however, if my Paladin really wants his horse to deliver his smite, I'm fine with that, but he is sharing the spell not twinning it. As soon as 1 "X smite" powered attack hits, the spell discharges and puff spell has been used.

With the whole mount taking own turn, I feel like one of the key points of find steed is that it is Intelligent and hence should get its own independant movement/action/eetc. on top of those the player gets, in the same Initiative bracket as the PC. Worst case, if he abuses it, ill just start targeting his mount. AC11 and 19HP do not a frontline mount make.

Keep in mind though, that with Mounted Combatant feat a character can force any attack targeted at their mount to target the character instead. And if such mount must succeed in Dex save to halve damage, they instead ignore the damage with success.

In all honesty, I don't think it's that much of an abuse, really. With Find Familiar, for example, a wizard can cast a touch spell and have his familiar to deliver it with it's reaction. Effectively making the touch spell as 100 ft. range spell.

Actually, if you feel this shared smite is an issue, you could say that the mount must use it's reaction to deliver the smite's effect. That way it wouldn't be exactly equal to if the paladin delivered it, and might even force the player to more careful consideration with them.

As my signature suggests, I do love playing a paladin, and I wouldn't mind if a special mount which would be an extension of my paladin would be slightly restricted when it comes to certain effects.

[MaxWilson]

Keep in mind though, that with Mounted Combatant feat a character can force any attack targeted at their mount to target the character instead. And if such mount must succeed in Dex save to halve damage, they instead ignore the damage with success.

In all honesty, I don't think it's that much of an abuse, really. With Find Familiar, for example, a wizard can cast a touch spell and have his familiar to deliver it with it's reaction. Effectively making the touch spell as 100 ft. range spell.

Albeit a touch range spell which requires awkwardly coordinating the initiative of two separate entities, and prevents the familiar from using Flyby like it normally does.

[Lines]

You have stated the answer to your own question, you just don't realize it.
1) You can only share spells which TARGET only yourself.
2) Smite spells have a RANGE of self.

Do you see the problem here?
Range and target are two different things.
Smite spells are self only, yes.... but they don't TARGET you, they target a different creature, which is the target of the attack. Read the spell descriptions, and you'll see that they specifically refer to targets.

Range of self means that the Caster is either the target, or the point of origin (PHB, page 202 or 203 or something like that).
In this case, for smite spells, he's the point of origin. He doesn't take the effects of the spell, so he isn't the target. The creature struck by his attack takes the effect of the spell, so that creature is the target.

Smite spells cannot be shared.

Not going to debate any of this, just going to wonder aloud: Why the hell is there no target line in spell descriptions? Why on earth would you have spells like find steed that have the word target very important to how they work (with target of self potentially meaning anything from smite spells to cone of cold is allowed) without putting a target line in the spell description?

[Segev]

The familiar ability to deliver touch spells doesn't require coordination of initiative. You cast the spell, and the familiar makes the attack on its next turn. It creates a weird delay, but it's not difficult to implement.

I see far more problems with the attempt to say that spells which have range:self are not target:self than with simply allowing smite spells to be shared with your paladin steed. It's not like that's too horrifically powerful an ability, and all the convolutions and twisty readings needed to get it not to be so cause a number of strange, probably unintended breaks in the rules.

[Arkhios]

The familiar ability to deliver touch spells doesn't require coordination of initiative. You cast the spell, and the familiar makes the attack on its next turn. It creates a weird delay, but it's not difficult to implement.

Actually...

Finally, when you cast a spell with a range of touch, your familiar can deliver the spell as if it had cast the spell. Your familiar must be within 100 feet of you, and it must use its reaction to deliver the spell when you cast it. If the spell requires an attack roll, you use your attack modifier for the roll.
...reaction can be used even on someone elses turn.

[Segev]

Actually...

...reaction can be used even on someone elses turn.
Good point. That is what I get for not double checking. So it is even less a matter of coordinating initiatives. And would allow them their own attack if the wanted.

[Celeden]

The way I read the smite spells is that they're a self targeted concentration buff. Yes, you target a creature with the subsequent melee attack but they are not the target of the spell itself.

In order, you cast a smite spell on yourself. You then maintain concentration on the spell and the next attack you land has an added effect. The spell doesn't target another creature nor does it target an area. You can cast it before combat and on yourself ready for a fight, as an example

So, given all that, I see no reason why you can't share the spell with a mount in exactly the same way that a sorcerer does with twinned buffs like haste. The only real difference is that the buff expires once the target makes a successful attack.

[Vogonjeltz]

Done to death already, smite spells don't target self.

[Talamare]

The way I read the smite spells is that they're a self targeted concentration buff. Yes, you target a creature with the subsequent melee attack but they are not the target of the spell itself.

In order, you cast a smite spell on yourself. You then maintain concentration on the spell and the next attack you land has an added effect. The spell doesn't target another creature nor does it target an area. You can cast it before combat and on yourself ready for a fight, as an example

So, given all that, I see no reason why you can't share the spell with a mount in exactly the same way that a sorcerer does with twinned buffs like haste. The only real difference is that the buff expires once the target makes a successful attack.

While this was ALMOST correct, and if the spell was worded better. It would have been true. In general Smite Spells are just kinda disappointing

[Arkhios]

In general Smite Spells are just kinda disappointing

This much I think we all can agree with. Smite spells s*** **s.

[Lines]

Done to death already, smite spells don't target self.

Yes they do. As do more entertaining things like investiture of flame, melfsminute meteors and magic jar.


This much I think we all can agree with. Smite spells s*** **s.

Mostly, though banishing smite's pretty decent.

[Gwendol]

Yes they do. As do more entertaining things like investiture of flame, melfsminute meteors and magic jar.


A range of self is not the same thing as a spell targeting the caster. Such a spell has no target, and as such is not eligible for sharing with your mount. There is no ambiguity, no "gray area", no "ask your DM" unclarity in this matter. The limitation is quite clearly a very conscious decision.

As for the steed it is clearly intelligent enough to be able to act independently, and furthermore it fights as a "seamless unit" together with its rider. As a DM I would allow the mount to use its attack, as well as follow the instructions of the rider (but can act independently if needed, maybe the rider is knocked out, or falls under the effect of a spell, etc).

[Lines]

A range of self is not the same thing as a spell targeting the caster. Such a spell has no target, and as such is not eligible for sharing with your mount. There is no ambiguity, no "gray area", no "ask your DM" unclarity in this matter. The limitation is quite clearly a very conscious decision.

As for the steed it is clearly intelligent enough to be able to act independently, and furthermore it fights as a "seamless unit" together with its rider. As a DM I would allow the mount to use its attack, as well as follow the instructions of the rider (but can act independently if needed, maybe the rider is knocked out, or falls under the effect of a spell, etc).

Yes it does, the target is you.

[Segev]

There is no "target" line in spell headers. Claiming "range:self" does not mean that you are targeted strikes me as way more pedantic than 5e wants us to be.

[Gwendol]

Yes it does, the target is you.

No it's not. Why do I know this you may ask? Because it's written in the PHB, page 202, under the heading "Range":

Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some
spells can target only a creature (including you) that you
touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only
you. These spells have a range of self.

Spells with a range of self do not target creatures, they only affect the caster.


There is no "target" line in spell headers. Claiming "range:self" does not mean that you are targeted strikes me as way more pedantic than 5e wants us to be.

Nor does it have to be such a line in spell headers. The description of the spell clearly indicates what targets (if any) one can choose. Spells with a range of self do not detail this. It is not at all pedantic, at least not more so than any other rule in the game.

[Segev]

No it's not. Why do I know this you may ask? Because it's written in the PHB, page 202, under the heading "Range":


Spells with a range of self do not target creatures, they only affect the caster.

If it only affects you, it's only targeting you. Remember that 5e is NOT so pedantic and precise in its use of keywords.

[Gwendol]

No, this is you trying to make things up. The quoted text clearly distinguishes between a targeted spell and a spell with a range of self. If you don't like the rule, make your own, but don't try to pass it off as being within the RAW.

[Segev]

No, this is you trying to make things up. The quoted text clearly distinguishes between a targeted spell and a spell with a range of self. If you don't like the rule, make your own, but don't try to pass it off as being within the RAW.

Er, no. "Most spells have a range. Some spells can only target a single creature. Other spells have a range of self."

Nowhere in that chain of sentences does it imply that spells with a range do not target creatures.

Though I do appreciate the distinction you're drawing a bit more, as I believe you're reading "range: self" as being "area of effect: whatever space your physical body occupies." Which would be akin to dropping a you-shaped fireball on yourself, but not "technically" targeting yourself.

In M:tG or even 3.5, I'd agree that distinction was meaningful, insightful, and devious, but I am not convinced 5e is so picky.

[Gwendol]

You conveniently edited the quote to leave out the sentence that spells with a range of self affect only you. There's a distinction.

[Lines]

You conveniently edited the quote to leave out the sentence that spells with a range of self affect only you. There's a distinction.

If they only affect you, you're the target. The entire point of the find steed ability is to share spells that would normally only affect you.

[Segev]

You conveniently edited the quote to leave out the sentence that spells with a range of self affect only you. There's a distinction.

I didn't "conveniently leave it out." If a spell "affects only you," you are the target of it. It literally takes making "target" a keyword that means something more specific in game-rule terms than it does in the English language - something which 5e avoids doing as a general rule - to rule otherwise.

Again, in 3.5, that'd be a brilliant observation. That technically, the "self range" spell never TARGETS you, it just AFFECTS you because you're in its area would be relevant and important to fine, nuanced examination of how various powers and abilities interact.

In 5e, there is no reason to assume that "targets only you" and "affects only you" are not synonymous, as they are in the English language in which it is written, nor that this was some finely chosen, careful distinction made between the find steed spell and the description of spell targeting/ranges.

[mgshamster]

Ok, originally I was against the idea of letting a spell with Range: Self also effect the mount, but after going through the PHB and realizing that "Target" is not a descriptor on spells, I started to change my mind.

Then I noticed something on page 204 about Targetting. It says that you can target yourself if you are within the range. As you are the only viable Target in an area that has a Range of Self, then you're the target. Then, the Find Steed spell says that when you're the target of your own spell, you may also include the Steed as the target of your spell, then I'm inclined to agree that this technique works by the rules.

[DivisibleByZero]

Ok, originally I was against the idea of letting a spell with Range: Self also effect the mount, but after going through the PHB and realizing that "Target" is not a descriptor on spells, I started to change my mind.

Then I noticed something on page 204 about Targetting. It says that you can target yourself if you are within the range. As you are the only viable Target in an area that has a Range of Self, then you're the target. Then, the Find Steed spell says that when you're the target of your own spell, you may also include the Steed as the target of your spell, then I'm inclined to agree that this technique works by the rules.

Everyone here seems to be forgetting three very important things.
1) The example text about Range: Self is just that: example text.
2) The relevant rule here is under AoE spells, wherein the cater becomes the Point of Origin, and is not the target, but still leaves the spell with a range of Self.
3) The text very clearly uses the word Target, and when it does so it is not referring to the caster.

Add these up, and the sum is that Find Steed does not allow a paladin to share smite spells. Anything else is an houserule.

[Segev]

Everyone here seems to be forgetting three very important things.
1) The example text about Range: Self is just that: example text.
2) The relevant rule here is under AoE spells, wherein the cater becomes the Point of Origin, and is not the target, but still leaves the spell with a range of Self.
3) The text very clearly uses the word Target, and when it does so it is not referring to the caster.

Add these up, and the sum is that Find Steed does not allow a paladin to share smite spells. Anything else is an houserule.

I disagree, for reasons I've given before, but since 5e literally doesn't run without houserules due to how loose the interpretability of the game is, it really isn't worth arguing further. At least, not to me.

[DivisibleByZero]

The game runs just fine without houserules. Just because every single little tiny potential circumstance isn't spelled out and defined a'la 3.5 doesn't mean you need to houserule things.
And yes, the relevant rule is under AoE spells. Smite spells are essentially all AoE spells, with a range of Self, with the Caster being the PoO, and the AoE (and therefore the target) becomes not a cone or a line or something but rather the creature that is hit by the caster's next successful melee attack.

[KorvinStarmast]

The game runs just fine without houserules. Just because every single little tiny potential circumstance isn't spelled out and defined a'la 3.5 doesn't mean you need to houserule things.
And yes, the relevant rule is under AoE spells. Smite spells are essentially all AoE spells, with a range of Self, with the Caster being the PoO, and the AoE (and therefore the target) becomes not a cone or a line or something but rather the creature that is hit by the caster's next successful melee attack.

You charge up like a capacitor, and on a successful hit release the energy.
That's how smite works.

For the point on the steed ... you may wish to consider this (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/62330/22566).
I'd recommend anyone interested in this combo look hard at the Find Steed Spell and mounted combat. The latter is sparsely covered in the rules, to be charitable.

[DivisibleByZero]

I don't need to read a discussion about how they interact, for one simple reason.
They. Do. Not. Interact. In. Any. Way.
Are you smiting yourself? No? Then you aren't the target. Simple.
So who is the target? Easy. The spell description tells you who the target is, ad the spell description tells you that the target is the creature hit by the paladins next melee attack. That is the creature being smote, and that is the target of the Smite spell.
It's not the paladin being smote, and the paladin is not the target.
Anyone arguing that the Paladin is the target of his own smite spell is either (1) intentionally trying to game the system, or (2) doesn't understand that Range and Target are two different things, or (3) is simply dense.
I feel like a broken record here.
Use common sense people: Is the Paladin the one being smote? No? Then he isn't the target of the Smite spell.... The one being smote is the target of the Smite spell. And hey, guess what? That's backed up by the spell description literally using the word TARGET. And with that one simple fact in mind, you cannot share a smite spell with your mount.
This seriously is nowhere near difficult to understand.

[mgshamster]

I don't need to read a discussion about how they interact, for one simple reason.
They. Do. Not. Interact. In. Any. Way.
Are you smiting yourself? No? Then you aren't the target. Simple.
So who is the target? Easy. The spell description tells you who the target is, ad the spell description tells you that the target is the creature hit by the paladins next melee attack. That is the creature being smote, and that is the target of the Smite spell.
It's not the paladin being smote, and the paladin is not the target.
Anyone arguing that the Paladin is the target of his own smite spell is either (1) intentionally trying to game the system, or (2) doesn't understand that Range and Target are two different things, or (3) is simply dense.
I feel like a broken record here.
Use common sense people: Is the Paladin the one being smote? No? Then he isn't the target of the Smite spell.... The one being smote is the target of the Smite spell. And hey, guess what? That's backed up by the spell description literally using the word TARGET. And with that one simple fact in mind, you cannot share a smite spell with your mount.
This seriously is nowhere near difficult to understand.

The "target" you're referring to is the target of the attack, not the target of the spell.

Per the Make an Attack rules on page 104, the first thing you do is choose a target.

Per the Range rules in spell casting (page 202), you have to pick targets within the range. If the range is self, you're the only target of the spell. Per the Targeting Yourself rules on page 204, of you are in the area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself. Since the area of effect is "Self" then you can target yourself with the spell.

Per the Find Steed spell, any spell you cast which only targets you (all smite spells), you may chose to have also effect your steed.

Then, in the text of the smite spells, you attack someone and start following the "Make an Attack" rules where you choose a target. It's that attack target (not spell target, which is Self) that the text is talking about.

Also, stop being insulting.

[mgshamster]

Anyways, it doesn't matter. Ask the GM. If you're the GM, make your own ruling.

As I see it, sure your horse does damage anyway. Besides it's not like you have the ability to morph into an animal twice a day and just replace your hit point total with the maximum hit point total of that animal and effectively triple your HP every day while also being a full 9th level spell caster. That would just be silly. So Ed can go ahead and bite that goblin for a bit of extra damage.

[mgshamster]

I've been chatting with my players about this topic. One of them asked me to post the following here:

We can actually determine how powerful the spell is. You get find steed at 5th level. And let's say you take branding smite too. Which is +2d6 and purges invisibility on a target second Level. So effectively we're talking about a spell that does 4d6 damage when combined with another second level spell and has decent invisibility support but it's so circumstantial it's really unimportant.

Compared to what a... wizard can do at 5th level?
Fireball is a 20 foot radius sphere that does 8d6 fire damage on a failed save. To everything.

Cleric?

Oh as a class action it can destroy undead with a thought up to 1/2 CR. Which according to the broken DMG creature creation guide can be up to 20HP each.

Druid? Well it can still turn into a bear twice a day. But let's say you're playing it safe and going the casting route. Oh hey! Call lightning. Oh what? 10 minutes where I can call down 3d10 lightning bolts EVERY ROUND FOR 10 MINUTES and it hurts each creature within 5 feet of that spot?

Yeah. You know what. That damn horse doing +2d6 damage once is really hurting your game you poor DM. Your players are really gaming you for everything it's worth. Maybe you should relax and take a short break from gaming for a bit while your munchkin players go work out their latent aggression.

[bid]

Fireball is a 20 foot radius sphere that does 8d6 fire damage on a failed save. To everything.
Branding smite is 2nd level, better compare to scorching ray.


And some people are confused: it's not DM vs players, it's player vs party. Someone who steal thunders every battle with some cheap tricks. Where's the fun for the other players?

[mgshamster]

Branding smite is 2nd level, better compare to scorching ray.


And some people are confused: it's not DM vs players, it's player vs party. Someone who steal thunders every battle with some cheap tricks. Where's the fun for the other players?

The paladin can't even cast Find Steed at that level. We need to be comparing 5th level characters, not a 5th level paladin to a 3rd level wizard.

Even with that, the paladin would be doing 2d6+weapon+str. So let's say 3d6+str for ease. Then the mount (which may not even be able to attack while the paladin is mounted; which is an entirely different debate) - assuming a warhorse - is doing 4d6+4.

So 7d6+4+Str vs Scorching Ray's 6d6 cast at its lowest slot, available two levels before the paladin can even do this combo. Or 8d6 for the current level.

Right about on par with each other. It is in the Paladins favor by str mod+0.5 points on average, but not what I'd call "stealing thunder."

Let's compare to using this same 2nd level spell slot to Divine Smite. This spell gives additional damage of 4d6 between the paladin and the mount, or an average of 14 damage. Divine Smite as a 2nd level spell gives 3d8 additional damage, or 13.5. If the GM allows this combo and allows the mount to attack while the paladin is riding it, then this combo is worth 0.5 points of damage more than just using Divine Smite at the same level. Again, I don't think this is earth shattering.

[JackPhoenix]

The paladin can't even cast Find Steed at that level. We need to be comparing 5th level characters, not a 5th level paladin to a 3rd level wizard.

There's your problem...you're comparing primary class feature of a wizard to a secondary class feature of a paladin...their spellcasting isn't, and shouldn't be equal. Wizard gets full casting and some secondary feature based on his school, paladin gets half casting, extra attack, divine smite, lay on hands, better proficiencies and higher HP and oath abilities on top of that. 2nd level paladin spell shouldn't be comparable to 3rd level wizard spell... all 5 level paladin features put together should be comparable to level 5 spellcasting, the paladin's spells are only a small part of those.

[mgshamster]

There's your problem...you're comparing primary class feature of a wizard to a secondary class feature of a paladin...their spellcasting isn't, and shouldn't be equal. Wizard gets full casting and some secondary feature based on his school, paladin gets half casting, extra attack, divine smite, lay on hands, better proficiencies and higher HP and oath abilities on top of that. 2nd level paladin spell shouldn't be comparable to 3rd level wizard spell... all 5 level paladin features put together should be comparable to level 5 spellcasting, the paladin's spells are only a small part of those.

I did. A single spell vs a spell and an attack and a mount attack across two rounds (not counting the Find Steed spell). Or a single spell vs divine smite and an attack and a mount attack.

Scorching Ray, by itself, is doing 6d6 damage at 3rd level or 8d6 damage at 5th level. That's a single action.

Branding Smite is doing 2d6 at 5th level or 4d6 with the mount. But it takes an action to cast. Then, on a different round, add in the attack (which is dependent on the mount and the weapon). That's two actions across two rounds (up to one minute apart) to do similar damage as a wizard's one action. I used warhorse and longsword, because those are classic paladin things.

If you don't want to use it, that's fine. But it's an average of 0.5 damage more than just using that spell slot for divine smite. And divine smite is a free action that you can use after you know if you hit.

Edit: just realized that smite spells are bonus actions, so a single round with two actions. But heck, just use a fireball and hit two enemies and you've now doubled the damage a paladin can do with this combo.

[mgshamster]

Got me thinking: what would a 5th level fighter be able to do?

If we take a two-weapon fighter with short swords and 16 strength, then once per short rest he can dish out 6d6+18, or 39 average damage. If we have two short rests a day, the fighter can do this three times per day. If the fighter is a battle master, one superiority die will make it 43.5 average damage.

Compare that to our paladin using this combo (for a full round of attacks, which I didn't include earlier): 2d6 Branding Smite + 1d8+3 longsword w/ 16 str + 1d8+3 for extra attack + 2d6 branding smite mount + 2d6+4 warhorse attack. That's an average of 40 damage. If we were to use that spell slot for Divine Smite instead, we'd be looking at 1d8+3 (x2) + 3d8 + 2d6+4 for an average of 39.5 damage. The paladin can do either of these twice per long rest.

Our second level spell Scorching Ray is doing 8d6 at level 5 for 28 average damage. If the wizard were to use a fireball instead of scorching ray, it would be 28 average damage per target on a failed save. Two targets does more average damage than either the fighter or the paladin (or four targets who all make their save and don't have evasion).

To top it all off, the wizard is much more versatile than either the paladin or the fighter. So even if they can do more damage in a single round 2-3 times a day, who cares? Full casters still have the versatility.

What's really amusing is that just a few weeks ago I was conversing with someone who claimed that casters are still massively overpowered compared to martials and that 5e did nothing to curb the caster-martial disparity in 3.X. And here were talking about Paladins and fighters being OP compared to casters.

[MeeposFire]

Oddly most spells require a target when cast. This spell can be cast when the only target around is you. Is it possible that the "target" mentioned in the spell is not the enemy you hit with the attack but rather the weapon attack that you use to deliver it and that the actual target of this spell itself is you or your weapon (depending on how you see it)?

In other words is it possible that target is similar to the word level in that it is a word that is used many times for many things and thus can lead to confusion?

If the PHB says that the target needs to be in range when cast then who is the target when a paladin casts this spell when nobody else is around? Does this spell sound more like a self buff which most would say is supposed to work with the steed or a direct attack spell like magic missile that certainly do not?

[mgshamster]

So I know I'm probably beating a dead horse here (ha!), but this question has got me thinking a lot about it.

What if we look at the horse in comparison to a ranger. The ranger - at 5th level - has to sacrifice one of his attacks to get his animal companion to attack. Why doesn't the Paladin? Why are we assuming free attacks from the mount? If we require the sacrifice of the attack, it drops the paladin's average damage by 7.5 points. If it doesn't work at all, then the smite spells are only viable for thier other abilities (with the damage as a bonus), because Divine Smite will always do more damage. That may actually be the point of them.

In addition, this entire subject is dependent on a GM letting the mount attack at all. Per Jeremy Crawford (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/10/06/find-steed-spell-intelligence/), the paladin mount is treated as a normal mount (not an independent mount) due to the mental link to the paladin, so if the paladin is mounted, the horse can't attack. In order for this combo to work, the paladin has to be mounted to cast the smite spell, then dismount, then they both attack independently (the mount can attack if it doesn't have a rider). Now that would look really funny: "The mounted paladin casts a spell, charges, jumps off the horse and attacks, and then the horse attacks as well." Of course, dismounting takes 15' of movement, so if you want to do all that in one round, try not to move much. And if that doesn't work, then the horse could just attack next turn.

The combo only works while mounted, but per Jeremy Crawford the steed can't attack if you're mounted.

[MeeposFire]

So I know I'm probably beating a dead horse here (ha!), but this question has got me thinking a lot about it.

What if we look at the horse in comparison to a ranger. The ranger - at 5th level - has to sacrifice one of his attacks to get his animal companion to attack. Why doesn't the Paladin? Why are we assuming free attacks from the mount? If we require the sacrifice of the attack, it drops the paladin's average damage by 7.5 points. If it doesn't work at all, then the smite spells are only viable for thier other abilities (with the damage as a bonus), because Divine Smite will always do more damage. That may actually be the point of them.

In addition, this entire subject is dependent on a GM letting the mount attack at all. Per Jeremy Crawford (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/10/06/find-steed-spell-intelligence/), the paladin mount is treated as a normal mount (not an independent mount) due to the mental link to the paladin, so if the paladin is mounted, the horse can't attack. In order for this combo to work, the paladin has to be mounted to cast the smite spell, then dismount, then they both attack independently (the mount can attack if it doesn't have a rider). Now that would look really funny: "The mounted paladin casts a spell, charges, jumps off the horse and attacks, and then the horse attacks as well." Of course, dismounting takes 15' of movement, so if you want to do all that in one round, try not to move much. And if that doesn't work, then the horse could just attack next turn.

The combo only works while mounted, but per Jeremy Crawford the steed can't attack if you're mounted.

Kind of an odd ruling he has there considering most summoned creatures serve the summoner but DO get their own turns and do not need to be controlled so unless there is a specific rule given (such as with the rangers beast) why should this summon be different?

I don't believe there is a general rule anywhere that says summoned creatures do not get their own turns and actions in this edition so I am not sure how by the rules he got to that decision. Can't tell from the tweet as his explanation in the tweet makes no sense on its own.

[mgshamster]

Kind of an odd ruling he has there considering most summoned creatures serve the summoner but DO get their own turns and do not need to be controlled so unless there is a specific rule given (such as with the rangers beast) why should this summon be different?

I don't believe there is a general rule anywhere that says summoned creatures do not get their own turns and actions in this edition so I am not sure how by the rules he got to that decision. Can't tell from the tweet as his explanation in the tweet makes no sense on its own.

The question is one of whether a steed acts under the normal mount rules or the independent mount rules. With no rider, the mount can act normally, just like any other creature.

Normal mounts can only take the following actions when a rider is mounted: Dodge, Disengage, Dash. Attacking is not one of the options.

Conversely, intelligent mounts act independently. They can do whatever the heck they want. So if you were riding a dragon, it can attack all it wants and there really isn't anything you can do about it.

The question in the tweet was: since Find Steed makes the steed intelligent (Int 6), does it act independently or like a normal mount? Crawford's answer was that it acts like a normal mount; it does not act independently because it's linked to the paladin's mind.

Edit: he says it again here, in different words. Link (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/16/find-steed-steed-can-attack-on-your-turn/)

[MeeposFire]

The question is one of whether a steed acts under the normal mount rules or the independent mount rules.

Normal mounts can only take the following actions when a rider is mounted: Dodge, Disengage, Dash. Attacking is not one of the options.

Conversely, intelligent mounts act independently. They can do whatever the heck they want. So if you were riding a dragon, it can attack all it wants and there really isn't anything you can do about it.

The question in the tweet was: since Find Steed makes the steed intelligent (Int 6), does it act independently or like a normal mount? Crawford's answer was that it acts like a normal mount; it does not act independently because it's linked to the paladin's mind.

Edit: he says it again here, in different words. Link (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/16/find-steed-steed-can-attack-on-your-turn/)

So if the general rule is that an intelligent mount can act on its own when mounted and the spell makes the mount intelligent. So the reason given for it not working is that the summoned creature has a mind link? If the problem is being summoned does that mean if I somehow summoned a dragon and was to use it as a mount is it unable to act independently (lets just say it is not the find steed spell just in case it matters)? Also is this rule about mind links actually stated somewhere? Crawford is not very good about citing actual rules sometimes he just makes comments but does not cite them.

[mgshamster]

So if the general rule is that an intelligent mount can act on its own when mounted and the spell makes the mount intelligent. So the reason given for it not working is that the summoned creature has a mind link? If the problem is being summoned does that mean if I somehow summoned a dragon and was to use it as a mount is it unable to act independently (lets just say it is not the find steed spell just in case it matters)? Also is this rule about mind links actually stated somewhere? Crawford is not very good about citing actual rules sometimes he just makes comments but does not cite them.

I think it's for this spell specifically and not with any other summoning spell. And I think this is the relevant text:

"Your steed serves you as a mount, both in combat and out, and you have an instinctive bond with it that allows you to fight as a seamless unit." Page 240 under the Find Steed spell description.

Because you fight as a seamless unit, and because the mount does not control you in any way, the conclusion is that you control the mount. If you completey control the mount, then it cannot act independently. Therefore it follows the normal mount rules and not the independent mount rules, despite its intelligence.

Anyways, that's my take, and not one I would have arrived at if I hadn't read Crawford's tweets. It's... convoluted, to say the least.

[MeeposFire]

I think it's for this spell specifically and not with any other summoning spell. And I think this is the relevant text:

"Your steed serves you as a mount, both in combat and out, and you have an instinctive bond with it that allows you to fight as a seamless unit." Page 240 under the Find Steed spell description.

Because you fight as a seamless unit, and because the mount does not control you in any way, the conclusion is that you control the mount. If you completey control the mount, then it cannot act independently. Therefore it follows the normal mount rules and not the independent mount rules, despite its intelligence.

Anyways, that's my take, and not one I would have arrived at if I hadn't read Crawford's tweets. It's... convoluted, to say the least.

I appreciate the attempt to rationalize the answer. It sounds like that is the best we are going to get. I only ask because Crawford has been known to slip in some rulings not based on any current rules (such as the magic initiate ruling) and I wanted to know whether if this was the case with this.

[Daishain]

I think it's for this spell specifically and not with any other summoning spell. And I think this is the relevant text:

"Your steed serves you as a mount, both in combat and out, and you have an instinctive bond with it that allows you to fight as a seamless unit." Page 240 under the Find Steed spell description.

Because you fight as a seamless unit, and because the mount does not control you in any way, the conclusion is that you control the mount. If you completey control the mount, then it cannot act independently. Therefore it follows the normal mount rules and not the independent mount rules, despite its intelligence.

Anyways, that's my take, and not one I would have arrived at if I hadn't read Crawford's tweets. It's... convoluted, to say the least.
My take? neither ruleset is right for this situation, making table judgement necessary.

A trained warhorse is capable of fighting and killing as a seamless unit with its rider. In some cases, the horse is a deadlier weapon than the piece of metal its rider is swinging around. Now, take that warhorse, give it near human intelligence, AND a mental link with its rider. Does it really make sense to keep it as limited in actions as your average riding nag using the controlled mount rules? The independent rules aren't any better in that sense, as then you're talking about a separate action sequence rather than two halves of a coordinated whole.

So no, leave the controlled mount rules for standard riding horses and the independent rules for that random bear you "talked" into tolerating your presence on its back. The paladin's steed and other coursers that approach that level of symbiotic fighting prowess need something better than either.

[MeeposFire]

It would be odd for a creature to become more intelligent/have a link to better coordinate and become less capable with fighting alongside you.

[Lines]

So I know I'm probably beating a dead horse here (ha!), but this question has got me thinking a lot about it.

What if we look at the horse in comparison to a ranger. The ranger - at 5th level - has to sacrifice one of his attacks to get his animal companion to attack. Why doesn't the Paladin? Why are we assuming free attacks from the mount? If we require the sacrifice of the attack, it drops the paladin's average damage by 7.5 points. If it doesn't work at all, then the smite spells are only viable for thier other abilities (with the damage as a bonus), because Divine Smite will always do more damage. That may actually be the point of them.

In addition, this entire subject is dependent on a GM letting the mount attack at all. Per Jeremy Crawford (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/10/06/find-steed-spell-intelligence/), the paladin mount is treated as a normal mount (not an independent mount) due to the mental link to the paladin, so if the paladin is mounted, the horse can't attack. In order for this combo to work, the paladin has to be mounted to cast the smite spell, then dismount, then they both attack independently (the mount can attack if it doesn't have a rider). Now that would look really funny: "The mounted paladin casts a spell, charges, jumps off the horse and attacks, and then the horse attacks as well." Of course, dismounting takes 15' of movement, so if you want to do all that in one round, try not to move much. And if that doesn't work, then the horse could just attack next turn.

The combo only works while mounted, but per Jeremy Crawford the steed can't attack if you're mounted.
But the ranger is crap. Beastmaster is basically the worst subclass in the game, why would we ever use that as a baseline or comparison? This is like those people complaining that the warblade was better than the fighter in 3.5.

[Arkhios]

I don't need to read a discussion about how they interact, for one simple reason.
They. Do. Not. Interact. In. Any. Way.
Are you smiting yourself? No? Then you aren't the target. Simple.
So who is the target? Easy. The spell description tells you who the target is, ad the spell description tells you that the target is the creature hit by the paladins next melee attack. That is the creature being smote, and that is the target of the Smite spell.
It's not the paladin being smote, and the paladin is not the target.
Anyone arguing that the Paladin is the target of his own smite spell is either (1) intentionally trying to game the system, or (2) doesn't understand that Range and Target are two different things, or (3) is simply dense.
I feel like a broken record here.
Use common sense people: Is the Paladin the one being smote? No? Then he isn't the target of the Smite spell.... The one being smote is the target of the Smite spell. And hey, guess what? That's backed up by the spell description literally using the word TARGET. And with that one simple fact in mind, you cannot share a smite spell with your mount.
This seriously is nowhere near difficult to understand.

Someone needs to calm down a bit here. Frankly, I find your attitude towards this issue needlessly aggressive. Chill mate, it's just a game. A GAME.

The smite spell itself is a two-fold effect. It has two very different targets and very different effects:

First, when you cast the spell, the first effect "charges you with energy" waiting for release. This energy is just as likely to never get released if you forgot to appease the gods of RNG. Circle is closed in regards to this effect. The energy surrounds you, humming, waiting. That's it. In this regard, you target yourself. To surround yourself with this energy waiting for release. It's really not that hard to imagine that it could include your steed as well. The Find Steed says you and your steed become a "seamless unit". This Seamless Unit becomes surrounded by this energy, simple as that.

Second, when you (could be the paladin or the steed all the same) hit with a Melee Weapon Attack (note, not just "Melee Weapon"; Creatures in MM and PHB have their natural attacks laid out as "Melee Weapon Attacks") during your turn, the attack discharges the effect surrounding the Seamless Unit, which includes the paladin and his steed. This is another complete spell effect that just happens to rely from a single source. However, it requires its own trigger to happen. A trigger that may never come. Why is this so difficult to understand? Btw, this effect is the actual "Smite", not the energy surrounding you.

[Gwendol]

Or, we can accept that the rules don't fit our style of play and change them. What you describe sounds great, go for it! It's not what the rules say though.

Spells with a range of self do not fall under the category of target: only you. Find Steed makes it quite clear that it is targeted spells that are shareable, or else the text would read "...also affects your steed". One reason for this is the possible abuse when using non-paladin spells with a range of self, such as produce flame, or area attack spells (burning hands, cone of cold, etc). This isn't supposed to be twinned spells metamagic after all. You don't specify yourself as the target of the spell when the range is Self, since the spell only affects you or defines you as the point of origin.

On the steed itself. Crawford's tweets are not rules, and I don't accept them as such. In this case it is quite obvious he is ruling based on his reading of RAW, but as many have pointed out already the ruling is convoluted and leads to some strange cases (the mount is intelligent and fights as a seamless unit, yet is no better in combat than a horse bought from the nearest farm?).

[Lines]

Or, we can accept that the rules don't fit our style of play and change them. What you describe sounds great, go for it! It's not what the rules say though.

Spells with a range of self do not fall under the category of target: only you. Find Steed makes it quite clear that it is targeted spells that are shareable, or else the text would read "...also affects your steed". One reason for this is the possible abuse when using non-paladin spells with a range of self, such as produce flame, or area attack spells (burning hands, cone of cold, etc). This isn't supposed to be twinned spells metamagic after all. You don't specify yourself as the target of the spell when the range is Self, since the spell only affects you or defines you as the point of origin.

On the steed itself. Crawford's tweets are not rules, and I don't accept them as such. In this case it is quite obvious he is ruling based on his reading of RAW, but as many have pointed out already the ruling is convoluted and leads to some strange cases (the mount is intelligent and fights as a seamless unit, yet is no better in combat than a horse bought from the nearest farm?).

So what are your thoughts on sharing investiture of flame or melf's minute meteors?

[Gwendol]

Range: self are not shareable. Furthermore, Investiture of Flame is a particularly bad spell to cast while mounted.

[MeeposFire]

Range: self are not shareable. Furthermore, Investiture of Flame is a particularly bad spell to cast while mounted.

What about a spell like mirror image or shield? Both are range self but I think are the sort of spells that are supposed to be shared between horse and rider assuming he had access to it.

[Lines]

Range: self are not shareable. Furthermore, Investiture of Flame is a particularly bad spell to cast while mounted.

Then what is sharable? And why would casting investiture of flame while mounted be in any way a bad idea as long as you're not right next to a party member? 2d10 fire damage to anyone who approaches and your horse can use its action to shoot a line of 4d8 fire damage.

[Zalabim]

Not every spell has to have a target. Not every spell with a target has only a single target.

I don't think there is a general rule for summoned creatures. That's why every spell that summons or creates creatures seems to tell you when they act and how you can control them.

The multiclassing spellcasting rules are the most likely and most succinct source for the Magic Initiate ruling.

A horse with 6 Intelligence is not "an intelligent creature like a dragon." It's unusually intelligent, not Mr. Ed. I would say it comes down to your option to choose whether to control your mount or allow it to act independently, but as your mount has a telepathic link to you and an instinctive bond that lets it fight as a seamless unit with you, that sounds like the spell description telling you it doesn't act independently, regardless of whether you're riding it. If the mount did act on its own, I would expect the spell to have rules saying when it acts and takes its actions in combat. See Find Familiar on the same page for an example of these details. That the game designer agrees with this ruling is promising. Your Find Steed steed serves you as a mount, both in combat and out. It does not act independently from you and it does not roll its own initiative, because the spell doesn't say that it does. It's a horse, of course, and it does what a horse does.

[mgshamster]

What about a spell like mirror image or shield? Both are range self but I think are the sort of spells that are supposed to be shared between horse and rider assuming he had access to it.

"Which one do you think he is?"

"The one on the horse, obviously. Shoot that one!"

[Lines]

"Which one do you think he is?"

"The one on the horse, obviously. Shoot that one!"

So don't ride the horse, get off it and have 8 images total.

[mgshamster]

So don't ride the horse, get off it and have 8 images total.

I wouldn't have to. In my games, the paladin could share that spell. To me, it makes perfect sense why it would work.

[JackPhoenix]

A horse with 6 Intelligence is not "an intelligent creature like a dragon." It's unusually intelligent, not Mr. Ed.

Just a note: Int 6 horse is smarter then average Ogre (int 5) and just as smart as young white dragon (smarter then white wyrmling (int 5)). On a related note, I was also surprised that trolls have int 7...I always thought ogres were the smarter of the ugly low level giants

[Zalabim]

Yes. The horse can count to 10 and the Ogre cannot. However, if you tried to ride the ogre, it would probably act as an independent mount and your horse wouldn't.

[Talamare]

Range: self are not shareable. Furthermore, Investiture of Flame is a particularly bad spell to cast while mounted.

Some Range Self are shareable

The problem is that they use Range Self for both "Originating from your space" and "Affecting the caster"
A good rule of thumb is if it does damage, it probably doesn't work

[Segev]

Some Range Self are shareable

The problem is that they use Range Self for both "Originating from your space" and "Affecting the caster"
A good rule of thumb is if it does damage, it probably doesn't work

I'm not sure on what you base that rule of thumb.

[Daishain]

A horse with 6 Intelligence is not "an intelligent creature like a dragon." It's unusually intelligent, not Mr. Ed. I would say it comes down to your option to choose whether to control your mount or allow it to act independently, but as your mount has a telepathic link to you and an instinctive bond that lets it fight as a seamless unit with you, that sounds like the spell description telling you it doesn't act independently, regardless of whether you're riding it. If the mount did act on its own, I would expect the spell to have rules saying when it acts and takes its actions in combat. See Find Familiar on the same page for an example of these details. That the game designer agrees with this ruling is promising. Your Find Steed steed serves you as a mount, both in combat and out. It does not act independently from you and it does not roll its own initiative, because the spell doesn't say that it does. It's a horse, of course, and it does what a horse does.
If so, what is the point of either the boosted intelligence or the mental link? If one strictly follows the controlled mount rules, the only practical difference between the paladin's uber special outsider mount and the standard horse being sold by the hawker around the corner is the former can be summoned. For something that was once a powerful class feature, that is an incredible let down.

Like I mentioned before, real life horses with normal intelligence and no mental link are already capable of doing ridiculously more than the controlled mount rules allow. The boost from the find steed spell just makes the discrepancy less justifiable.

It makes far more sense to assume that the lack of detail for these cases was a simple oversight. Such certainly isn't the only one. If so, it is up to us to come up with rules that makes sense rather than trying to crowbar it in.

[Lines]

Some Range Self are shareable

The problem is that they use Range Self for both "Originating from your space" and "Affecting the caster"
A good rule of thumb is if it does damage, it probably doesn't work

Why is that a good rule of thumb? What is it based on?

[Talamare]

Why is that a good rule of thumb? What is it based on?

Can you list any damage spells that works with it? And don't you dare list any smites or cone of cold

[Lines]

Can you list any damage spells that works with it? And don't you dare list any smites or cone of cold

Investiture of flame.

[mgshamster]

Can you list any damage spells that works with it? And don't you dare list any smites or cone of cold

If it works, then any spell with Range: Self would work. Using some Range: Self spells as a differentiator to determine if Range: Self spells work or do not work doesn't make any sense. You have to use justification outside of it.

You could easily rule that for your game, and that's fine, but it's just an arbitrary line drawn with no justification other than "I don't want Range: Self damaging spells to work this way."

[Talamare]

Investiture of flame.

I had to Google that spell since its not in the phb, but yea with the way it's worded. I'd allow it. I double checked my wording. Really glad I said "probably doesn't".

As far as hammer response, its not my houseruling to make it not work. It's the official ruling. If you want to houserule for it to work than that's your ruling. Go ahead and give the Paladin the cone of cold horse, and wait till your players start doing stupid builds to try to exploit it

[Segev]

I had to Google that spell since its not in the phb, but yea with the way it's worded. I'd allow it. I double checked my wording. Really glad I said "probably doesn't".

As far as hammer response, its not my houseruling to make it not work. It's the official ruling. If you want to houserule for it to work than that's your ruling. Go ahead and give the Paladin the cone of cold horse, and wait till your players start doing stupid builds to try to exploit it

Except that the wording wouldn't give cone of cold, despite the attempts to use it as a straw man to prove a broader point. The range is "Self (60 ft. cone)," which tells you right away that it's not "Self Only" or any variant on the theme. It clearly does not target "only yourself," but rather anything in that cone. (Interestingly, argument could be made that if it includes yourself, it deals damage to you, too, but it's pretty clear that's not intended.)

[Talamare]

Except that the wording wouldn't give cone of cold, despite the attempts to use it as a straw man to prove a broader point. The range is "Self (60 ft. cone)," which tells you right away that it's not "Self Only" or any variant on the theme. It clearly does not target "only yourself," but rather anything in that cone. (Interestingly, argument could be made that if it includes yourself, it deals damage to you, too, but it's pretty clear that's not intended.)

It's not strawman because well... just Google “cone of cold find steed"... it's the most argued spell that people defend should work with it........ ffs how am I having to defend myself from everyone when I'm suggesting something fairly reasonable

[Lines]

It's not strawman because well... just Google “cone of cold find steed"... it's the most argued spell that people defend should work with it........ ffs how am I having to defend myself from everyone when I'm suggesting something fairly reasonable

This amuses me greatly - cone of cold is the most argued spell because it's the spell I used as an example when I first brought the possibility up in the days when we were getting image leaks of bits of the PHB on 4chan. (actually the very first one was lightning bolt, but I switched to cone of cold pretty much immediately because it had 'from your hands' in the spell description and I wanted to annoy the kind of person who objects that horses don't have hands). Then after several threads arguing about it somebody makes a handy post with the look at my horse thing and cone of cold becomes the poster child - I always liked magic jar more though, having your horse possess people sounds hilarious.

[Arkhios]

You know... Find Steed doesn't refer to a horse exclusively. The steed can be practically any kind of animal or beast of burden. In fact, I personally think horses are boring.

[Lines]

You know... Find Steed doesn't refer to a horse exclusively. The steed can be practically any kind of animal or beast of burden. In fact, I personally think horses are boring.
Yeah, but there's no proper list given. I'd like the range of creatures to extend to higher CRs if you cast it in a higher level slot, or at least for their HP to scale with level - at level 5 it's ok, at level 20 your steed dies every single time somebody throws an attack near it.

[Segev]

how am I having to defend myself from everyone when I'm suggesting something fairly reasonable

Believe it or not, that's what anybody who isn't trolling believes, no matter how outlandish you think what they're suggesting is.

[Gwendol]

Then what is sharable? And why would casting investiture of flame while mounted be in any way a bad idea as long as you're not right next to a party member? 2d10 fire damage to anyone who approaches and your horse can use its action to shoot a line of 4d8 fire damage.

All paladin spells in which you are the target, as written in the rules (not the point of origin, etc, thus excluding all Range: Self spells). Examples are Aid, Bless, Cure Wounds, Death Ward, Heroism, Lesser Restoration, Protection from ..., Remove Curse, Shield of Faith.
Furthermore, the Paladin spell list include several spells in which the mount will be included in the spell effect (Aura of..., and others).

[Lines]

All paladin spells in which you are the target, as written in the rules (not the point of origin, etc, thus excluding all Range: Self spells). Examples are Aid, Bless, Cure Wounds, Death Ward, Heroism, Lesser Restoration, Protection from ..., Remove Curse, Shield of Faith.
Furthermore, the Paladin spell list include several spells in which the mount will be included in the spell effect (Aura of..., and others).

So would divine favour not be sharable from your perspective? I mean it seems to perfectly fit the condition of 'while mounted on your steed, you can make any spell you cast that targets only you also target your steed' - divine favour is a spell that affects only you, but it's range: self.

[Vogonjeltz]

Yes they do. As do more entertaining things like investiture of flame, melfsminute meteors and magic jar.

No, they have a range of self. They don't have a target of self.

Find Steed relevant text: "While mounted on your steed, you can make any spell you cast that targets only you also target your steed." (PHB 240)

Relevant targeting text:
"Targeting Yourself If a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can choose yourself, unless the creature must be hostile or specifically a creature other than you." PHB 204

Smite spells specifically target other creatures: "The next time you hit a creature...the target" PHB 216, 219, 220, 274, 282

If the spell targets a point in space, it doesn't qualify. If the spell targets multiple creatures, it doesn't qualify, if the spell targets a hostile creature it does not qualify..


If it only affects you, it's only targeting you. Remember that 5e is NOT so pedantic and precise in its use of keywords.

The targeting rules on 204 illustrate why the keywords do matter.


(Interestingly, argument could be made that if it includes yourself, it deals damage to you, too, but it's pretty clear that's not intended.)

The point of origin for a Cone isn't included in the area of effect unless you want it to be (PHB 204). So yes, if they deliberately choose to include their own space, they'll take damage. The only reasons I can imagine for doing so would be if someone was in the same space grappling them and they somehow had gotten cold immunity / had nothing left to lose.

[Lines]

No, they have a range of self. They don't have a target of self.

Find Steed relevant text: "While mounted on your steed, you can make any spell you cast that targets only you also target your steed." (PHB 240)

Relevant targeting text:
"Targeting Yourself If a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can choose yourself, unless the creature must be hostile or specifically a creature other than you." PHB 204

Smite spells specifically target other creatures: "The next time you hit a creature...the target" PHB 216, 219, 220, 274, 282

If the spell targets a point in space, it doesn't qualify. If the spell targets multiple creatures, it doesn't qualify, if the spell targets a hostile creature it does not qualify..



The targeting rules on 204 illustrate why the keywords do matter.



The point of origin for a Cone isn't included in the area of effect unless you want it to be (PHB 204). So yes, if they deliberately choose to include their own space, they'll take damage. The only reasons I can imagine for doing so would be if someone was in the same space grappling them and they somehow had gotten cold immunity / had nothing left to lose.

So why wouldn't investiture of flame work? It's a self buff, obviously you're the target.

[Gwendol]

Because you don't target yourself with the spell. It just happens.

[Segev]

As I am AFB, some further details on what this page in the PHB on targeting says that proves that "range:self" does not mean you're the target. Especially since it demonstrates how important this is.

[Lines]

Because you don't target yourself with the spell. It just happens.

It just happens to somebody. That somebody being you. It applies to yourself. Maybe a better way of saying that is... it targets yourself. Seriously, how are you justifying a spell affects you as not targeting you?

[mgshamster]

Smite spells specifically target other creatures: "The next time you hit a creature...the target" PHB 216, 219, 220, 274, 282

That's the target of the attack, not the target of the spell. You're the target of the spell.

The spell targets you and charges you up with magical energy. Then the next time you attack, the target of your attack takes extra damage from the energy of the spell.

The confusion lies in using the word "target" for two different rule sets: spells and attacks. But that's not uncommon, as the word "level" is also used to mean different things throughout the rules.

And all of this could be cleared up by someone with a Twitter account asking Crawford about it.

[Talamare]

Investiture of Flames definitely does target you

Flames race across your body, shedding bright light in a 30-foot radius and dim light for an additional 30 feet for the spell’s duration. The flames don’t harm you. Until the spell ends, you gain the following benefits:
• You are immune to fire damage and have resistance to cold damage.
• You can use your action to create a line of fire 15 feet long and 5 feet wide extending from you in a direc- tion you choose. Each creature in the line must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 4d8 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

Those effects probably wouldn't work if they didn't target you
Altho now we have to wonder if it affects "only you"

[Lines]

Investiture of Flames definitely does target you

Flames race across your body, shedding bright light in a 30-foot radius and dim light for an additional 30 feet for the spell’s duration. The flames don’t harm you. Until the spell ends, you gain the following benefits:
• You are immune to fire damage and have resistance to cold damage.
• You can use your action to create a line of fire 15 feet long and 5 feet wide extending from you in a direc- tion you choose. Each creature in the line must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 4d8 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

Those effects probably wouldn't work if they didn't target you
Altho now we have to wonder if it affects "only you"

It seems pretty straightforward - 'until the spell ends, you gain the following benefits', that's definitely a self buff.

[Gwendol]

Investiture of Flames definitely does target you

Flames race across your body, shedding bright light in a 30-foot radius and dim light for an additional 30 feet for the spell’s duration. The flames don’t harm you. Until the spell ends, you gain the following benefits:
• You are immune to fire damage and have resistance to cold damage.
• You can use your action to create a line of fire 15 feet long and 5 feet wide extending from you in a direc- tion you choose. Each creature in the line must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 4d8 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

Those effects probably wouldn't work if they didn't target you
Altho now we have to wonder if it affects "only you"

It affects the caster, since it has a range of self, but there is no targeting of the spell involved. There is a distinction.

[Gwendol]

As I am AFB, some further details on what this page in the PHB on targeting says that proves that "range:self" does not mean you're the target. Especially since it demonstrates how important this is.

On the contrary, my case is solid and you need to prove that range: self is the same as the caster choosing him/herself the target of the spell.

[Lines]

It affects the caster, since it has a range of self, but there is no targeting of the spell involved. There is a distinction.

There really isn't, you're still targeting yourself. In fact, you're the only one you can target with said spell.

I get where you're coming from, but you're not basing this off any actual rule - there is no reason to think a spell that can only target yourself doesn't target yourself.

[Daishain]

This is getting ridiculous. It has already been shown that the intended purpose of the shared spells feature is for the sake of self buffs (and possibly items such as misty step), not attacks. It has already been shown that "target self" is NOT the same as "range: self". Finally, it doesn't make sense from the perspective of fluff or mechanics to allow all range: self spells to be doubled in this fashion.

Just let it go people.

[Gwendol]

You're disregarding the fact that the rules never say that, they make it clear the spell only affects the caster and stay clear of defining the caster as the target of the spell. This is repeated in the section on targeting.

[Lines]

This is getting ridiculous. It has already been shown that the intended purpose of the shared spells feature is for the sake of self buffs (and possibly items such as misty step), not attacks. It has already been shown that "target self" is NOT the same as "range: self". Finally, it doesn't make sense from the perspective of fluff or mechanics to allow all range: self spells to be doubled in this fashion.

Just let it go people.

How is investiture of flame not a self buff?

[Segev]

On the contrary, my case is solid and you need to prove that range: self is the same as the caster choosing him/herself the target of the spell.


You're disregarding the fact that the rules never say that, they make it clear the spell only affects the caster and stay clear of defining the caster as the target of the spell. This is repeated in the section on targeting.

I asked you to quote the relevant language, as I'm away from book. "My case is solid because I say so, and you need to prove I'm wrong when I'm the only one who has current access to what I say backs me up," is not an argument. It's a playground taunt.

And while I suppose this is technically the playground, we generally expect better from ourselves here.

[mgshamster]

This is getting ridiculous. It has already been shown that the intended purpose of the shared spells feature is for the sake of self buffs (and possibly items such as misty step), not attacks. It has already been shown that "target self" is NOT the same as "range: self". Finally, it doesn't make sense from the perspective of fluff or mechanics to allow all range: self spells to be doubled in this fashion.

Just let it go people.

Where was it shown?

I've shown fairly conclusively that it absolutey should work; I've cited rules, given explanations, and shown all my work.

By my reading, they work.

I haven't seen someone explain adequately why it doesn't work - other than simply claiming that they don't work.

Lines has shown that it's intended to work with at least some spells, and the arbitrary line drawn that it doesn't work with attack spells has also not been shown to be anything other than arbitrary.

Show your work, please. Every explanation for why it doesn't work I've poked holes in (which have been conveniently ignored).

[Daishain]

How is investiture of flame not a self buff?
The investitures are self buffs in many respects, I was speaking in general rather than about that particular spell. I do however doubt the spells in question were written with the feature in question in mind.

For the sake of keeping in touch with the spirit of the rule, I would probably allow the fire immunity and other such items to be shared. The fire shield is shared but the damage is not doubled, and only the rider can project flames

[Lines]

The investitures are self buffs in many respects, I was speaking in general rather than about that particular spell. I do however doubt the spells in question were written with the feature in question in mind.

For the sake of keeping in touch with the spirit of the rule, I would probably allow the fire immunity and other such items to be shared. The fire shield is shared but the damage is not doubled, and only the rider can project flames

Why? The self buff has three effects - fire resistance and cold immunity, a fire damage aura and the ability to shoot fire. They're all part of the buff, why single out the damage part? If somebody has gone to all this trouble to either take them as their special bard spells or multiclass 5 levels of paladin and 11 in sorcerer or wizard, have they not earned the right to properly share their fire buff with their mount?

[Gwendol]

I asked you to quote the relevant language, as I'm away from book. "My case is solid because I say so, and you need to prove I'm wrong when I'm the only one who has current access to what I say backs me up," is not an argument. It's a playground taunt.

And while I suppose this is technically the playground, we generally expect better from ourselves here.

I've given the relevant references early in this thread. If you want to debate my position it won't be too hard for you to look up the relevant posts and formulate a counterpoint.

[Daishain]

Why? The self buff has three effects - fire resistance and cold immunity, a fire damage aura and the ability to shoot fire. They're all part of the buff, why single out the damage part? If somebody has gone to all this trouble to either take them as their special bard spells or multiclass 5 levels of paladin and 11 in sorcerer or wizard, have they not earned the right to properly share their fire buff with their mount?
-From a balance perspective, freely doubling damage is a significant powerboost. Since this is the only potential means of doubling up on damage spells that affect more than a single target (and the only means of doing it at all without additional resource cost), it is painfully obvious that such combinations are not intended.

-From a fluff perspective. It is one spell, not two. You can extend personal effects around this mount that is in many ways a part of you, but you are the spell's origin and maintainer.

[Daishain]

Where was it shown?

I've shown fairly conclusively that it absolutey should work; I've cited rules, given explanations, and shown all my work.

By my reading, they work.

I haven't seen someone explain adequately why it doesn't work - other than simply claiming that they don't work.

Lines has shown that it's intended to work with at least some spells, and the arbitrary line drawn that it doesn't work with attack spells has also not been shown to be anything other than arbitrary.

Show your work, please. Every explanation for why it doesn't work I've poked holes in (which have been conveniently ignored).
Vast majority of your theory is thrown on the fire with this line on page 204 "If you are in the area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself." targeting =/= range. Period

If you want more, its already been covered by shadow here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?371207-Find-Steed-being-broken/page2

In addition, Crawford already said no "Nope. See the PH (p. 203) for the distinction between "only you" and an effect originating from you."

[Lines]

-From a balance perspective, freely doubling damage is a significant powerboost. Since this is the only potential means of doubling up on damage spells that affect more than a single target (and the only means of doing it at all without additional resource cost), it is painfully obvious that such combinations are not intended.

-From a fluff perspective. It is one spell, not two. You can extend personal effects around this mount that is in many ways a part of you, but you are the spell's origin and maintainer.

Balance wise... ehhh, it's a very specific combination that requires hefty sacrifice to get. And I legitimately don't understand the second part of that sentence - 'it is painfully obvious that such combinations are not intended'... so? Any D&D edition's going to have a lot of moving parts, that's why we have rules. Why would anyone care if it's what they intended? The entire point to this is creating your own character, not following some linear path. One level of life cleric quadruples the healing a druid can get out of goodberry and they probably never thought about that, but it's not like getting four times as much healing from a level one spell is something anyone objects to.

Fluff perspective wise - the steed gets a copy of any buff that you apply to yourself, investiture of flame is a buff you apply to yourself. You get the effects, it gets the effects. Not sure why this is a problem.

[Segev]

I've given the relevant references early in this thread. If you want to debate my position it won't be too hard for you to look up the relevant posts and formulate a counterpoint.

Since this thread is only 4 pages, I will assume your post on page 2 which I did directly respond to is to what you're referring, as I can't find anything else that looks like you quoted from anywhere.

The quote you offered said, roughly, that spells could have multiple targets in an area, affect only yourself, or target multiple creatures specifically. Nothing in that implies that just because it affects only yourself is it not targeting you, despite your insistence that it does.

Your replies really seem to be of the "nuh-uh!" school of refutation, since even when you quoted something, you proceeded to simply declare it to say what you wanted it to, rather than actually defending your interpretation. You also accused me of "conveniently leaving out" portions of your quote...except that the parts you then quoted me as leaving out did absolutely nothing to support your position.

Meanwhile, Daishain has quoted p. 204, discussing how everything in an AoE is targeted, which more or less settles this argument: a range:self spell targets you by virtue of putting you in and as the only valid region for it to affect anything, and to affect you, it has to target you.

[mgshamster]

Ok, let's get some relevant rules:

The range rules have two different definitions for Range: Self on page 200.

"Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self."

Some people believe that this statement means that you're not the target, you're just the only one affected. Others believe that since you're the only one affected, by default you're the only target.

"Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell's effect must be you."

Some people are using this second definition of Range: Self as why it doesn't work.

==================

Next are the Targeting Yourself rules on page 204.

"If a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can choose yourself, unless the creature must be hostile or specifically a creature other than you. If you are in the area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself."

If we use the Area of Effect definition for Range: Self above, then by default you're in the area of effect for your spell and you can target yourself. It should work.

================

Next up are the targeting parameters. Some people claim that because the text of the spell says that your target it got with extra damage, then it means that you're not the target. I believe that were conflating two different uses of the word "target."

The spell affects you via the Range: Self designation, but as part of a smite spell you have to attack someone. Therefore we go to the attack rules on pages 194, which shows the order of steps for making an attack. Here's step 1:

"Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location."

We know this is the case, because the smite spells all say, "The next time you make an attack with a melee weapon..." (See page 216, Banashing Smite for an example). This changes the use of the word Target from the spell rules to the attack rules.

Therefore, when the smite spell talks about your target, it's talking about the target of your attack, not the target of your spell. You are the target of the spell - the person taking the damage is the target of your attack.

============

Conclusion:
The only questionable part in all of this is whether the first Range rules I bolded above, talking about a spell that affects only you is a Range: Self spell can also mean that the spell has Targeted you. If you use the AoE rules for the Range: Self definition (remember, there are two definitions for Range: Self), then it must work.

Side Note: I've also posted a bunch of Math earlier showing that this combination for Smite Spells is practically no different than using that same spell slot for Divine Smite, having a standard fighter use Action Surge, or simply targeting more than one person with a fireball, so any over-powered argument is also out the window.

[mgshamster]

In addition, Crawford already said no "Nope. See the PH (p. 203) for the distinction between "only you" and an effect originating from you."

Citation?

Also, nothing on page 203 talks about this distinction.

Edit: Found it here - https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/609233888523649024

Note that he's responding to Find Steed + Thunderwave. So he's saying that a Range: Self spell that originates from you doesn't work. He's not saying that a spell which only affects you (also defined as Range: Self) is not targeting you.

Interestingly, from that same link, Crawford says, "Look carefully at the text of fireball: every creature affected is called a target."

Nothing in the Fireball text uses the word Affect, Effect, or Target, yet every person affected is also a target.

This means that a spell which affects only you per the first definition of Range: Self on page 202 also targets you. Which means - per Jeremy Crawford - it works with smite spells.

[Daishain]

Balance wise... ehhh, it's a very specific combination that requires hefty sacrifice to get. And I legitimately don't understand the second part of that sentence - 'it is painfully obvious that such combinations are not intended'... so? Any D&D edition's going to have a lot of moving parts, that's why we have rules. Why would anyone care if it's what they intended? The entire point to this is creating your own character, not following some linear path. One level of life cleric quadruples the healing a druid can get out of goodberry and they probably never thought about that, but it's not like getting four times as much healing from a level one spell is something anyone objects to.Why would anyone care? Because while exploiting loopholes in the rules can be fun for a time, you're throwing a wrench into game balance. Go too far and everything breaks down. I've seen it time and time again in 3.5, and doubt I'm alone in wanting to keep shenanigans like this to a minimum




Fluff perspective wise - the steed gets a copy of any buff that you apply to yourself, investiture of flame is a buff you apply to yourself. You get the effects, it gets the effects. Not sure why this is a problem.My point was that the feature in question appears to allow you to treat the mount as an extension of yourself. If such is the case (and yes I acknowledge fluff can be done in many ways), then the buff isn't copied at all.

Think of it this way. If you were to cast investiture of flame on yourself, or flaming hands, or misty step, etc. the assumption is that it affects not only you but items you are wearing. Otherwise it would get rather awkward as you burn your own equipment off or simply leaving them behind However, no one suggests that such items are valid subjects for additional AOE points of origin and other such affects, in spite of them being clearly separate from the caster, but still included in the spell. This strongly suggests that range: self spells can envelop things apart from the caster, but that only the caster is capable of projecting from that point. The simplest way to imagine share spells working is if one assumes the steed is being included in that envelope. The steed enjoys the protections, levitation, or other such benefits of being inside that field, but just like that belt knife is not directing the spell and thus cannot project.


Note that he's responding to Find Steed + Thunderwave. So he's saying that a Range: Self spell that originates from you doesn't work. He's not saying that a spell which only affects you (also defined as Range: Self) is not targeting you.you're splitting hairs. It confirms that Range: self does not in itself indicate either the target or the effect. Therefore, as also mentioned on those pages, it is left up to the spell description to determine the spells actual target for the sake of the feature in question.

A range: self spell that only effects the caster is indeed targeting the caster and is indeed a valid use of the shared spells feature. That has never been in question.

[Talamare]

Citation?

Also, nothing on page 203 talks about this distinction.

Edit: Found it here - https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/609233888523649024

Note that he's responding to Find Steed + Thunderwave. So he's saying that a Range: Self spell that originates from you doesn't work. He's not saying that a spell which only affects you (also defined as Range: Self) is not targeting you.

I don't think anyone is really arguing this
Lines is arguing that IoF isn't originating from you. It's actively affecting you, thus making it a self buff that targets you
I personally say he is right it is a self buff affecting you

HOWEVER, it still doesn't work because its not affecting 'ONLY' you

Edit - Note I didn't intend to target/approve/disprove you personally at all, just saying my own argument. I have no idea what side you're on

[Segev]

I don't think - though I am open to being corrected - that "range:self" is ever defined as "the five ft. square you occupy." If so, then you can target anything small enough to share your square with such effects. The reasonable conclusion, I think, is that things you're wearing are only affected if they're covered by some other rule (like the one in invisibility which discusses that things you're wearing and carrying are also invisible).

This otherwise gets...weird...fast. And leads to way, way more unintended consequences than the thing(s) seemingly trying to be defeated in this thread.

[mgshamster]

This could be easily resolved if someone with a Twitter account just asked Crawford about it.

Just say, "Can Smite Spells be shared with Find Steed?"

[Zalabim]

If a spell necessarily targets every creature it effects, then smite spells and investiture of flame cannot be shared with your mount because they effect other creatures than yourself. If a spell does not have to target every creature it effects, then smite spells and investiture of flame cannot be shared with your mount because they don't have to target you in the first place. Since spells only typically have targets, I believe it is the second case.

[Talamare]

This could be easily resolved if someone with a Twitter account just asked Crawford about it.

Just say, "Can Smite Spells be shared with Find Steed?"

Don't ask about Smite spells, that one has been done to death

Ask IoF in specific

[mgshamster]

If a spell necessarily targets every creature it effects, then smite spells and investiture of flame cannot be shared with your mount because they effect other creatures than yourself. If a spell does not have to target every creature it effects, then smite spells and investiture of flame cannot be shared with your mount because they don't have to target you in the first place. Since spells only typically have targets, I believe it is the second case.

I'm ok with this ruling. This provides evidence/backup to the idea that if the spell does damage to someone else, then it doesn't work.

Meaning that Mirror Image would work.

[Daishain]

I don't think - though I am open to being corrected - that "range:self" is ever defined as "the five ft. square you occupy." If so, then you can target anything small enough to share your square with such effects. The reasonable conclusion, I think, is that things you're wearing are only affected if they're covered by some other rule (like the one in invisibility which discusses that things you're wearing and carrying are also invisible).

This otherwise gets...weird...fast. And leads to way, way more unintended consequences than the thing(s) seemingly trying to be defeated in this thread.If items you're wearing are only affected if the spells says such it also gets weird. Otherwise you emerge from each Misty Step nude, your mirror image copies are likewise divested of clothing (calling into question the spell's actual usefulness), and any range:self AOE spells that fail to specify it only effects creatures would include your gear in whatever nastiness it incurs.

I certainly agree that "the five ft. square you occupy." is a horrible idea, but I for one was imagining a field that extended over the caster and items they carried like a second skin, not anything nearly large enough for the party halfling to snuggle into. A pixie sized critter in a pocket probably could, but that's up to DM discretion.

[mgshamster]

Don't ask about Smite spells, that one has been done to death

Ask IoF in specific

Then why hasn't t been posted here?

I'm going to go look for it on my next break.

[Segev]

Does a (hypothetical) spell which grants you sneak attack as a rogue of your level affect the target of your sneak attack?

What about a spell that enchants your weapon to be a +2 weapon?

[Daishain]

Does a (hypothetical) spell which grants you sneak attack as a rogue of your level affect the target of your sneak attack?

What about a spell that enchants your weapon to be a +2 weapon?
Hypothetically, the spell is augmenting the caster's skill in a specific manner. While the attacked target may have reason to regret the spell being cast, it does not directly effect him. In much the same way casting guidance for a perception check can't be said to directly effect the sneaky dude who gets spotted because of it

Magic Weapon and elemental weapon are a little trickier, since it is difficult to say exactly what it does. I'm inclined to believe that they simply make the weapon easier to wield and/or more capable of causing damage. If so, then again the attacked target is not directly effected by the spell. But for the sake of argument, if magic weapon does some kind of autotargeting thing where it locks onto a weakpoint and guides the weapon to it, or some other such shenanigans, then yes the attacked target would be directly effected.

[mgshamster]

Well, I found it.

A range of self means the caster is the target, as in shield, or the point of origin, as in thunderwave (PH, 202). (https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/606193562317766656)

If a smite spell is an AoE, then it doesn't work. If it isn't, then it does work. Per Jeremy Crawford.

AoE spells are those that form as lines, cones, cubes, spheres, or cylinders. The smite spells are not any of those, so they're not AoE spells. Ergo, it targets the caster (and only the caster, because Range is Self) and works.

This also answers the question about IoF.

[bid]

Next are the Targeting Yourself rules on page 204.

"If a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can choose yourself, unless the creature must be hostile or specifically a creature other than you. If you are in the area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself."
This is only useful for RAI since it shortens to "If a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can target yourself." Which is not the case for range: self spells.

I think AoA is a more interesting test case than smites. It doesn't make much sense to share the thp with your mount, making it clearly in the "separate instance" camp. There may be other spells where those affected aren't targets.


Nice summary btw.
And nice twitter search too.

[mgshamster]

Nice summary btw.
And nice twitter search too.

Thanks!

As a note, I don't care if I'm wrong; I'm happy to be wrong if that's the case - I care more about finding the correct answer.

But if I am wrong, I need to be shown the evidence and it has to withstand scrutiny.

As a counter to my arguments, I've also seen it asserted (with no evidence) that the designers don't want the Steed to be able to attack - they just wanted the paladin to have a cool steed to ride upon and to get some extra buffs for survivability. But not attack - as that takes away from the Beast Master. When I read it, the person making the claim said "from the tweets over the pat several days, it's clear that..." But of course, they didn't link or show any of their work for their analysis.

But I've also seen other mathematical analysis comparing the steed to an animal companion, trying to show that the steed wouldn't take anything away from the ranger. Let me find it again and I'll link it.

Ok. Found it. Minimal comprison was done and they concluded with "I don't know." https://m.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/3ie1it/find_steed_yet_more_clarification_from_crawford/ 9th post down by Bennetag

[DivisibleByZero]

Well, I found it.

A range of self means the caster is the target, as in shield, or the point of origin, as in thunderwave (PH, 202). (https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/606193562317766656)

If a smite spell is an AoE, then it doesn't work. If it isn't, then it does work. Per Jeremy Crawford.

AoE spells are those that form as lines, cones, cubes, spheres, or cylinders. The smite spells are not any of those, so they're not AoE spells. Ergo, it targets the caster (and only the caster, because Range is Self) and works.

This also answers the question about IoF.

Nope. Still wrong. Not "per Jeremy Crawford" as you claim.
Crawford says nothing about AoEs, you added that part on your own. Nowhere does it state that ONLY AoE spells use the Caster as the Point of Origin. He merely used an AoE spell as an example.
Smite spells have the Caster not as a target, but rather as a PoO, as I've been saying now for five pages or so.

[mgshamster]

Nope. Still wrong. Not "per Jeremy Crawford" as you claim.
Crawford says nothing about AoEs, you added that part on your own. Nowhere does it state that ONLY AoE spells use the Caster as the Point of Origin. He merely used an AoE spell as an example.
Smite spells have the Caster not as a target, but rather as a PoO, as I've been saying now for five pages or so.

Say it all you want. Without proof you've got nothing.

Edit: and the stuff about AoE isn't something I made up, it's straight from the PHB. The AoE rules cover lines, cones, spheres, cubes, and cylinders. Ergo, if a Ranged: Self spell is not one of those, then it's not an AoE. So the AoE definition doesn't apply. So the other definition does apply. So Jeremy Crawford's tweet applies. Ergo it works.

But if you're going to repeat the same thing over and over with no proof and just assertion - well, what is espoused without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Don't like it? That's fine. Change it up for your table. 5e is all about customization. That's the heart of this edition.

[DivisibleByZero]

Say it all you want. Without proof you've got nothing.

That's where you're wrong yet again. One thing that I have is common sense. And that common sense tells me that the creature being smote is the target of the smite spell. The next thing I have is the fact that the spell description uses the word TARGET. The third thing I have is the obvious design intent. The fourth in thing I have is Crawford claiming that Range: Self =/= Target: Self.
All you have is your hopes and dreams and intentional misinterpretations.

[mgshamster]

That's where you're wrong yet again. One thing that I have is common sense.

Insinuating other posters are idiots is against the rules. Please do not do this.

Also, not proof.


And that common sense tells me that the creature being smote is the target of the smite spell.

Not proof. Your "common sense" is wrong.


The next thing I have is the fact that the spell description uses the word TARGET.

I discussed this already. That word references the target of the attack, not the target of the spell.


The third thing I have is the obvious design intent.

Prove it.


The fourth in thing I have is Crawford claiming that Range: Self =/= Target: Self.

Find a single spell in the entire book that has "Target: Self" in its descriptor. One. One single spell. Do that, and I'll admit you're right.


All you have is your hopes and dreams and intentional misinterpretations.

Look in the mirror, friend.

[DivisibleByZero]

Insinuating other posters are idiots is against the rules. Please do not do this.

Also, not proof.

I insinuated nothing, and I made no comment about any other posters I made a comment about me.
Read into it whatever you will. I have no control over the thoughts that run through your head.

As for the proof that you apparently so desperately need.... you keep saying that someone should tweet it, and yet you don't seem willing to do so yourself.
Is it because you know what the answer will be, like I do?
Or are you going to cop out and say you don't have a twitter account and also don't have an email to make a twitter account in 3.7 seconds flat?

[Segev]

I insinuated nothing, and I made no comment about any other posters I made a comment about me.
Read into it whatever you will. I have no control over the thoughts that run through your head.

As for the proof that you apparently so desperately need.... you keep saying that someone should tweet it, and yet you don't seem willing to do so yourself.
Is it because you know what the answer will be, like I do?
Or are you going to cop out and say you don't have a twitter account and also don't have an email to make a twitter account in 3.7 seconds flat?

I am amazed at your powers of divination. :smallannoyed:

[Arkhios]

I insinuated nothing, and I made no comment about any other posters I made a comment about me.
Read into it whatever you will. I have no control over the thoughts that run through your head.

As for the proof that you apparently so desperately need.... you keep saying that someone should tweet it, and yet you don't seem willing to do so yourself.
Is it because you know what the answer will be, like I do?
Or are you going to cop out and say you don't have a twitter account and also don't have an email to make a twitter account in 3.7 seconds flat?

I, for one, have zero interest in twitter as a medium. Never have had. And I, for one (again), don't see it's worth it to create that account for just one question in particular, and never use Twitter again. Because I don't want to. Not because I was "lazy", nor because I was "busy", not because I might know the answer (whichever it may be). Why don't you ask, if you have the twitter account? Are you afraid of getting an answer that's opposite to your beliefs? :smallwink:

In the end, this is but a small rules interpretation matter. Table mileage may wary. No biggie. Our DM allows it. *I* would allow it for my group, and that's enough for me. I don't *care* what your interpretation of the supposed rules as intended would be. Frankly, I believe I'm not the only one who doesn't. Just FYI, your opinions are not god-written laws of the universe.

[Gwendol]

As I am AFB, some further details on what this page in the PHB on targeting says that proves that "range:self" does not mean you're the target. Especially since it demonstrates how important this is.

Page 204, under the heading "Targets":

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).

Furthermore (same page):

Targeting Yourself
If a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can
choose yourself, unless the creature must be hostile or
specifically a creature other than you. If you are in the
area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself.

In other words, the spell has to be an AoE spells including those with a range of self (targeted spells are no issue), for you to claim to target yourself.

[Lines]

Page 204, under the heading "Targets":


Furthermore (same page):


In other words, the spell has to be an AoE spells including those with a range of self (targeted spells are no issue), for you to claim to target yourself.

You're only giving positives there (the wording a typical spell means nothing) - if you cast a spell targeting a creature of your choice, you can target yourself. It does not say that that's the only way you can do it.

If A then you may B does not in any way imply B can only be achieved by A.

[Gwendol]

Well, that depends on how you view the rules as a whole. I'm explaining my view, and the reasons for it. Given those I feel my point of view is justified.

[Talamare]

So we all agree on one thing at least

It's better to argue amongst ourselves until eternity, getting no where... than to make a twitter account

because f twitter

[mgshamster]

So we all agree on one thing at least

It's better to argue amongst ourselves until eternity, getting no where... than to make a twitter account

because f twitter

Amen, brother!

[Vogonjeltz]

So why wouldn't investiture of flame work? It's a self buff, obviously you're the target.

Sorry, I had to look up the spell in the companion as I was away from book as well.

That spell appears to target the caster specifically, so that would be theoretically applicable to the mount assuming you were an 11 Wizard / 4 Paladin to have access to both spells. edit: Talamare's question as to if this really affects 'only you' is valid, probably worth pinging Crawford for clarification on the intention.

The mount would remain incapable of shooting a flame however, as it can only take the dodge, disengage, and dash actions. So even though the spell technically grants shooting flames as an action, the mount is incapable of using it by virtue of being a mount.


As I am AFB, some further details on what this page in the PHB on targeting says that proves that "range:self" does not mean you're the target. Especially since it demonstrates how important this is.

The spell target is found in the description. A spell with a range of self could be one that targets only the caster, but that's merely coincidence, not targeting.


And all of this could be cleared up by someone with a Twitter account asking Crawford about it.

Sure, as long as whoever asks doesn't obfuscate in their question such that the answer is easily misinterpreted. Like by asking a partial question where more information would reveal the opposite was the truth because context matters.

[Lines]

Sorry, I had to look up the spell in the companion as I was away from book as well.

That spell appears to target the caster specifically, so that would be theoretically applicable to the mount assuming you were an 11 Wizard / 4 Paladin to have access to both spells. edit: Talamare's question as to if this really affects 'only you' is valid, probably worth pinging Crawford for clarification on the intention.

The mount would remain incapable of shooting a flame however, as it can only take the dodge, disengage, and dash actions. So even though the spell technically grants shooting flames as an action, the mount is incapable of using it by virtue of being a mount.



The spell target is found in the description. A spell with a range of self could be one that targets only the caster, but that's merely coincidence, not targeting.



Sure, as long as whoever asks doesn't obfuscate in their question such that the answer is easily misinterpreted. Like by asking a partial question where more information would reveal the opposite was the truth because context matters.

That's not true. The mount is intelligent and so acts independently, though owing you the 'you have an instinctive bond that lets you fight as a seamless unit' part it has the rare advantage of combining acting independently with doing whatever you want it to. I mean, that's kind of the whole point - special, intelligent mount limited to paladins and bards that is unusually strong, intelligent and loyal.

[Segev]

The rules quoted on this page - thanks for that, everybody, by the by, as I forgot entirely to check my book last night - only convince me more that "range:self" means the spell targets you (and only you), if only by definition.

[DivisibleByZero]

The rules quoted on this page - thanks for that, everybody, by the by, as I forgot entirely to check my book last night - only convince me more that "range:self" means the spell targets you (and only you), if only by definition.

That isn't what it means.
Burning Hands. Range Self.
Cone of Cold. Range Self.
Lightning Bolt. Range Self.
Most of the spells which use the Caster as the Point of Origin have an AoE listed in parenthesis, but the Range is always listed as Self. That's proof positive that Range Self does NOT mean Target Self.
And that is all the proof that any reasonable person should need that the target of a Smite spell is the creature being smote, especially since the spell description uses that exact word, target, when referring to the creature being smote.
In this case, the Caster is the PoO, but there is no AoE. The effective AoE is the next creature stuck by a melee weapon attack.
Smite spells cannot be shared.

[Segev]

That isn't what it means.
Burning Hands. Range Self.
Cone of Cold. Range Self.
Lightning Bolt. Range Self.
Most of the spells which use the Caster as the Point of Origin have an AoE listed in parenthesis, but the Range is always listed as Self. That's proof positive that Range Self does NOT mean Target Self.
And that is all the proof that any reasonable person should need that the target of a Smite spell is the creature being smote, especially since the spell description uses that exact word, target, when referring to the creature being smote.
In this case, the Caster is the PoO, but there is no AoE. The effective AoE is the next creature stuck by a melee weapon attack.
Smite spells cannot be shared.

You're consistently ignoring the "(60 ft. cone)"-style additions to those.

The range is thus not simply "Self," which is to what I am referring. Moreover, the rules themselves, which you're referencing, mention that it's either "point of origin" or "target." Since the ones that are "point of origin" are clearly marked by that parenthetical identification of the actual area it covers after originating at "Self," the ones without it must target yourself.

And even this is more analysis than I suspect the writers put into it, given the design paradigm of 5e.

[mgshamster]

The rules quoted on this page - thanks for that, everybody, by the by, as I forgot entirely to check my book last night - only convince me more that "range:self" means the spell targets you (and only you), if only by definition.

That's correct.

Don't confuse it with the other type of Range: Self spells - where you're the point of origin for area of effect spells. You can tell the difference, spells listed as "Range: Self" target only you, spells listed as "Range: Self (x ft, [shape])" are area of effect spells from which you're the point of origin; these do not target you.

The conclusion is that you can cast a smite spell and have it target your steed as well as you. Of course, per Crawford, your steed can't attack while you're mounted, so you'll have to dismount for the steed to benefit (change this up if you like). It's also a concentration spell, which means that if you cast another concentration spell, then your steed loses the effects of the first spell - as well as all other concentration rules (taking damage, going unconscious, dying).

[DivisibleByZero]

You're consistently ignoring the "(60 ft. cone)"-style additions to those.

And you're apparently ignoring the words written in the posts that you quote, because I specifically mention those parenthesis in my post.

Everyone keeps yammering on about how ONLY the AoE spells with a specified Area of Effect have the parenthesis, but I'd like someone to point out to me where it says in the rules that ONLY those spells act as a point of origin for the caster.
Hint: It doesn't say that anywhere. You're all extrapolating, but nowhere does it say that.

So what makes more sense?
Does it make more sense that you cast a smite spell and hit an enemy, smiting them, while YOU were the target of the smite spell, even though the spell description specifically calls them the target?
Or does it make more sense that you cast a smite spell and hit an ememy, smiting them, and that enemy was the target of the smite spell, just like the spell description states, while you were the point of origin?
It's common sense here, people.

As for the "conclusion" mentioned in the previous post: That may be "your conclusion,", but it is by no means the commonly accepted or correct conclusion.

[bid]

As for the "conclusion" mentioned in the previous post: That may be "your conclusion,", but it is by no means the commonly accepted or correct conclusion.
So, what's your conclusion on AoA then?

[Talamare]

What if I present the circumstances of...
You're both correct

Smite spells target you with the spell as a buff
and your opponent with the smite as damage

However... Since that's 2 different people affected, it no longer qualifies due the second rule?

[Lines]

What if I present the circumstances of...
You're both correct

Smite spells target you with the spell as a buff
and your opponent with the smite as damage

However... Since that's 2 different people affected, it no longer qualifies due the second rule?

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The next time you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack it does extra damage - by that logic you can't share haste since you're using it to attack and therefore affect somebody.

The wording of find steed is that you share spells that target only you - and smite does target only you. Range of self and you don't target an enemy with smite, you target it with a regular melee weapon attack and smite adds damage to the next attack that hits.

[mgshamster]

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The next time you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack it does extra damage - by that logic you can't share haste since you're using it to attack and therefore affect somebody.

The wording of find steed is that you share spells that target only you - and smite does target only you. Range of self and you don't target an enemy with smite, you target it with a regular melee weapon attack and smite adds damage to the next attack that hits.

Agreed. Also, the explanation of Range: Self spells that are not AoE says that they only affect you. If this spell did not only affect you, then it wouldn't be Range: Self. If it did affect more than just you and was also Range: Self, then it would have to have a parentheses after it describing the range and shape. It is a Range: Self and it doesn't have the descriptor for an AoE, so it must be affecting only you. Which means it targets only you.

[Lines]

Agreed. Also, the explanation of Range: Self spells that are not AoE says that they only affect you. If this spell did not only affect you, then it wouldn't be Range: Self. If it did affect more than just you and was also Range: Self, then it would have to have a parentheses after it describing the range and shape. It is a Range: Self and it doesn't have the descriptor for an AoE, so it must be affecting only you. Which means it targets only you.

Seems pretty logical to me. Only way around it would be to argue that it has no target at all, which some have this thread, but... it does. You. You're the target. It's targeting you, and can't target anyone else. I mean that's pretty much inarguable, right? If it affects someone it has a target, if it affects you you're the target.

[Daishain]

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The next time you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack it does extra damage - by that logic you can't share haste since you're using it to attack and therefore affect somebody.

The wording of find steed is that you share spells that target only you - and smite does target only you. Range of self and you don't target an enemy with smite, you target it with a regular melee weapon attack and smite adds damage to the next attack that hits.
The rules are clear enough on one point, the "target" of a spell is primarily defined by the spell description, IE what it actually does.

In regards to Haste, the spell's primary effect causes the person it is cast upon to move faster. Others hit as a result of the boost to the user's abilities are never directly affected by the spell, as such they cannot be considered a target. Since the only target is instead clearly the immediate subject of the spell, it is shareable.

However, smite spells are quite different. Their effect is to cause someone hit by a weapon wielded by the caster to experience a magical emanation that is essentially a touch range magic attack. As I see it, we have two possible candidates for the official target of a smite spell. Potential target one is the victim, the one that is actually effected by the spell's energy. Potential target two is the caster's weapon, which carries that energy to its target. In either case, Smites would not be valid for sharing.

[mgshamster]

Seems pretty logical to me. Only way around it would be to argue that it has no target at all, which some have this thread, but... it does. You. You're the target. It's targeting you, and can't target anyone else. I mean that's pretty much inarguable, right? If it affects someone it has a target, if it affects you you're the target.

Well, some people conflating the spell target and the attack target and using that to justify the multiple spell targets - or to completey change the spell target from you to the target of your attack. It's easy do to, since it's the exact same word. Much like people new to D&D easily conflate character level with class level with spell level. They're all the same word, but that have different meanings in the game.

[Segev]

So what makes more sense?
Does it make more sense that you cast a smite spell and hit an enemy, smiting them, while YOU were the target of the smite spell, even though the spell description specifically calls them the target?
Or does it make more sense that you cast a smite spell and hit an ememy, smiting them, and that enemy was the target of the smite spell, just like the spell description states, while you were the point of origin?
It's common sense here, people.

As for the "conclusion" mentioned in the previous post: That may be "your conclusion,", but it is by no means the commonly accepted or correct conclusion.

Actually, it does make more sense that you're the target. The smite spell is a buff, empowering you to smite somebody with an attack. It's crystal clear in how the spell is written.

[hacksnake]

Pretty sure smites target yourself. Reviewed a couple the first reference to 'target' is within the context of a melee weapon attack made during the spell's duration. Ex:

The next time you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack during the spell's duration ... the attack deals an extra 1d6 fire damage to the target and causes the target to ignite in flames.

At this point common language meaning has established that "the target" means "the creature you just hit with a melee weapon attack" (i.e. - the target of your melee weapon attack).

Throughout the remainder of the spell description it continues to use 'the target' which is just a way to refer back to the previous noun we referenced so you know which thing we're talking about (i.e. - "the creature you first hit with a melee weapon attack after casting this spell as long as it was hit within this spell's duration").

The spell changes what your attack does. The attack now does weird things to its target like extra damage and fancy side effects that last a while. The spell duration happens to be linked to those extra side effects that the attack is causing. Nothing at all implies or explicitly states that the spell itself ever targets the target of the melee weapon attack.

EDIT: I'm a moron; hadn't read the thread in a while and just repeated what a bunch of other already said because I didn't see a couple pages of replies... My bad but I guess I'll just leave this here anyway.

In order to potentially redeem this post...

However, smite spells are quite different. Their effect is to cause someone hit by a weapon wielded by the caster to experience a magical emanation that is essentially a touch range magic attack. As I see it, we have two possible candidates for the official target of a smite spell. Potential target one is the victim, the one that is actually effected by the spell's energy. Potential target two is the caster's weapon, which carries that energy to its target. In either case, Smites would not be valid for sharing.

See above - I don't think that's right. The spell makes the next melee weapon attack you make, regardless of with which weapon or what you hit, that hits something within the duration of the spell do extra damage and cause side effects.

The effect TL;DR is: "the next melee weapon attack that you hit with does crazy extra things!"

[Daishain]

See above - I don't think that's right. The spell makes the next melee weapon attack you make, regardless of with which weapon or what you hit, that hits something within the duration of the spell do extra damage and cause side effects.

The effect TL;DR is: "the next melee weapon attack that you hit with does crazy extra things!"
The developers did not use prose free of all possible misinterpretation, so context is vital. Try to step back from the exact words used for a moment and think about what the spell is doing within the context of the game world. You are using a spell to augment your next attack. If we go with your interpretation, you're directing a spell at your own body, which then gets transferred to your weapon, and then finally to the object of your ire. This makes little sense, especially since we're presumably talking about casting the same energy intended to harm the enemy on yourself. (One can easily imagine a spell that safely transfers an energy packet twice before the "payload" becomes dangerous, but that presumably would take extra effort on the caster's part which is entirely unnecessary in this case.)

However, creating a buildup of magic energy that will discharge onto the next thing that comes into physical contact with it, much like a buildup of static electricity, makes a great deal of sense, especially for a paladin who is presumably only familiar with the very basics of divine magic. Just charge up the blade and start swinging.

At least, such are the conclusions I draw. I realize we're speaking of a fantastical and not well defined system, but I suspect that some standards of efficiency are at least relatively universal.

Out of fluff and back to mechanics, in regards to the spell not making a distinction between what weapon you hit with, it is just the simple way to handle it. The spell is cast and discharged within the context of a maximum of six seconds. Just how much in the way of weapon swapping do you imagine will typically occur in that time frame? (TWF is an exception, but I would like to remind that a straight paladin is written with zero support for that weapon style.) It is easier to just assume that the spell is cast upon the weapon that will be used rather than making people keep track.

[mgshamster]

Hacksnake, I think you have the right of it.

Let's take a different approach: if the spell targeted an opponent, then the spell would require a Spell Attack, using the paladin's casting ability score, which would be charisma. It doesn't.

There are other spells like this. Lightning Arrow is an example. It's a Range: Self that alters a piece of ammunition or thrown weapon that you have, which you then make a standard ranged attack. Your altered weapon deals additional damage.

These spells alter you - and they last for a limited amount of time. If you don't utilize the power you've gained within the time limit, you lose the benefits. It's also why they're concentration spells - most (all?) multi round self buff spells are.

[soldersbushwack]

I guess the debate comes down to are smite spells more like touch spells like Shocking Grasp or more like self-buff only spells like Shield?

[mgshamster]

I guess the debate comes down to are smite spells more like touch spells like Shocking Grasp or more like self-buff only spells like Shield?

Good point. Let's look it up.

Shocking grasp has you make a Melee Spell Attack (using your casting ability score modifier) and it has Range: Touch. So it's more like Shield.

[Saeviomage]

I guess the debate comes down to are smite spells more like touch spells like Shocking Grasp or more like self-buff only spells like Shield?
On the one hand, a smite spell must be targeting you because it lingers on you while you concentrate.

On the other hand, they must target the foe, because they linger on the foe while you concentrate.

I think my answer would be you can't duplicate them via your mount - they're clearly not only targeting yourself.

To me IoF would work just fine though.

[Arkhios]

The spell is cast and discharged within the context of a maximum of six seconds. Just how much in the way of weapon swapping do you imagine will typically occur in that time frame? (TWF is an exception, but I would like to remind that a straight paladin is written with zero support for that weapon style.) It is easier to just assume that the spell is cast upon the weapon that will be used rather than making people keep track.

What you are referring to matches the description of True Strike's duration. However, most smites last at least 1 minute, a.k.a. 10 rounds a.k.a. 60 seconds.
What if your initial attack after you cast the spell fails? You rolled a 1 on d20 to hit. Spell is still there. Now, you pick up another weapon with a +1 enhancement to see if it would hit better. Zero complications in swapping the weapon. A simple conclusion out of this is: The smite spell doesn't affect a single weapon. It affects 'you'. Your attacks deliver the effect, but as long as you don't hit, the spell affects you and just by the laws of magic, happens to be harmless to you. So what? Easily comparable with Vampiric Touch (btw, also a 'range: self' spell) which is harmful to your target but beneficial to you. Would the Vampiric Touch qualify for Find Steed shenanigans, I won't even try to dig into that. If someone else want to, be my guest.

[Gwendol]

That's correct.

Don't confuse it with the other type of Range: Self spells - where you're the point of origin for area of effect spells. You can tell the difference, spells listed as "Range: Self" target only you, spells listed as "Range: Self (x ft, [shape])" are area of effect spells from which you're the point of origin; these do not target you.

The conclusion is that you can cast a smite spell and have it target your steed as well as you. Of course, per Crawford, your steed can't attack while you're mounted, so you'll have to dismount for the steed to benefit (change this up if you like). It's also a concentration spell, which means that if you cast another concentration spell, then your steed loses the effects of the first spell - as well as all other concentration rules (taking damage, going unconscious, dying).

I doubt that will be allowable even by your "plain English" reading of the rules. The ability is called "share spells" after all, not "twin spells". In other words, even if you allow the smite spell to be shared it can only activate once, be it the paladin or the mount attacking. The same goes for all other range: self spells mentioned in this thread. If you insist on the plain English reading of the rules it has to apply everywhere, and not selectively.

[Talamare]

The ability is called "share spells" after all, not "twin spells". .

"While mounted on your steed, you can make any spell you cast that targets only you also target your steed."

"When you cast a spell that targets only one creature" ~ "to target a second creature in range with the same spell"

huh... I guess it is Twin Spell

[Gwendol]

If you start parsing words on that level we're back at limiting the ability to those spells that only target the caster =/= range:self.

[mgshamster]

"While mounted on your steed, you can make any spell you cast that targets only you also target your steed."

"When you cast a spell that targets only one creature" ~ "to target a second creature in range with the same spell"

huh... I guess it is Twin Spell

Interesting. A key difference is that Twinned Spell specifically calls out Range: Self as not being allowed. Find Steed has no such mention, and Crawford even says that Range: Self spells are allowed so long as they're not point of origin spells.

[DivisibleByZero]

and Crawford even says that Range: Self spells are allowed so long as they're not point of origin spells.
Exactly.
The problem is that this is a PoO spell. You guys just can't accept that fact because you're trying to lawyerize it with legalese instead of simply thinking about what the spell is and what it does and reading the entire description in context.
5e is all about taking things in context. You're all apparently failing at that on this one.

[mgshamster]

I doubt that will be allowable even by your "plain English" reading of the rules. The ability is called "share spells" after all, not "twin spells". In other words, even if you allow the smite spell to be shared it can only activate once, be it the paladin or the mount attacking. The same goes for all other range: self spells mentioned in this thread. If you insist on the plain English reading of the rules it has to apply everywhere, and not selectively.

I think you quoted the wrong person. I've never mentioned anything about using plain English.

"Share Spells," eh? That's a good point. Let's reread the spell.... No, sorry. It's not called "Share Spells." The word "share" is not used even a single time in the text of Find Steed. Maybe from a previous edition? I do that sometimes.

Anyways, the spell specifically says that it targets the steed in addition to you; you're not sharing the spell, you're adding a spell target.

Precedence may be found if there are other buff spells that have more than one target, but all targets lose the spell when one of them uses the buff. Do any such spells exist in this game?

[Vogonjeltz]

That's not true. The mount is intelligent and so acts independently, though owing you the 'you have an instinctive bond that lets you fight as a seamless unit' part it has the rare advantage of combining acting independently with doing whatever you want it to. I mean, that's kind of the whole point - special, intelligent mount limited to paladins and bards that is unusually strong, intelligent and loyal.

The mount is Intelligent, but controlled:

Per Crawford, it follows the normal rules:
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/636293240749056000

And also per Crawford, it isn't an independent creature:
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/635938490274811905

Assuming we're continuing to assign weight to the RAI, that means it can't shoot flames even if the Investitute of Flame works can get applied to it as well.

Incidentally @Coredump00 asked for clarification on the smite spells question on that same thread back on 6 Jun 2015 (3 days later), but it was not provided. https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/606193562317766656

It occurs to me that, as a result, even if the mount was eligible to get smite spells, it still couldn't use them being incapable of attacking, or more likely than not even wielding a weapon (which is also a requirement of the smite spells). So, double whammy of a no.


The rules quoted on this page - thanks for that, everybody, by the by, as I forgot entirely to check my book last night - only convince me more that "range:self" means the spell targets you (and only you), if only by definition.

Except that range self indicates it 'affects' you, not 'targets' you. Perhaps it's meant to be synonymous. Or perhaps it's a deliberate word choice limitation. Such deliberate limitations have been used in many places within the rules, so it would not surprise me. Twitter clarification on the specific word choice would be desirable.

[Lines]

The mount is Intelligent, but controlled:

Per Crawford, it follows the normal rules:
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/636293240749056000

And also per Crawford, it isn't an independent creature:
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/635938490274811905

Assuming we're continuing to assign weight to the RAI, that means it can't shoot flames even if the Investitute of Flame works can get applied to it as well.

Incidentally @Coredump00 asked for clarification on the smite spells question on that same thread back on 6 Jun 2015 (3 days later), but it was not provided. https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/606193562317766656

It occurs to me that, as a result, even if the mount was eligible to get smite spells, it still couldn't use them being incapable of attacking, or more likely than not even wielding a weapon (which is also a requirement of the smite spells). So, double whammy of a no.



Except that range self indicates it 'affects' you, not 'targets' you. Perhaps it's meant to be synonymous. Or perhaps it's a deliberate word choice limitation. Such deliberate limitations have been used in many places within the rules, so it would not surprise me. Twitter clarification on the specific word choice would be desirable.

Then what's the point of making it an intelligent, loyal, strong creature that fights with you as a seamless unit if it's going to act no different from a regular horse? And for that matter, why on earth does it count as controlled? This seems completely at odds with the actual point of the paladin's mount if all that stuff makes absolutely no difference.

[Ace Jackson]

It occurs to me that, as a result, even if the mount was eligible to get smite spells, it still couldn't use them being incapable of attacking, or more likely than not even wielding a weapon (which is also a requirement of the smite spells). So, double whammy of a no.


Afraid that's not so simple chief, the smite spells require a "melee weapon attack," and in the MM, the hooves attack action on the war horse and other such attacks from other creatures are called a "Melee weapon attack," and so would qualify if the smite could be shown to be transferred to mount...

Random side track, could you awaken a find steed mount and give it paladin levels?

Edit: In fairness to you, it starts out with the keyword "melee weapon attack," and then goes on to simply reference a "weapon." So I can see discussion arising on that point.

Additional edit: Looks like there's inconsistent wording between "Blinding smite," which I had been going off of, and "Banishing smite," which as you've claimed only references a weapon. Frankly, I'm not sure which to take as a template for what we could call the smite spell class. "Weapon attack" is not a keyword that I know of anywhere else, but the picture of the sword swinging paladin is iconic.

[Lines]

Afraid that's not so simple chief, the smite spells require a "melee weapon attack," and in the MM, the hooves attack action on the war horse and other such attacks from other creatures are called "Melee weapon attacks," and so would qualify if the smite could be shown to be transferred to mount...

Random side track, could you awaken a find steed mount and give it paladin levels?

Nope, you have to awaken a target of int 3 or less.

[Ace Jackson]

Nope, you have to awaken a target of int 3 or less.

Fair enough, I should have figured there was a requirement like that somewhere, but I forgot.

Thanks for the quick reply.

[mgshamster]

The mount is Intelligent, but controlled:

Per Crawford, it follows the normal rules:
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/636293240749056000

And also per Crawford, it isn't an independent creature:
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/635938490274811905

Assuming we're continuing to assign weight to the RAI, that means it can't shoot flames even if the Investitute of Flame works can get applied to it as well.

Incidentally @Coredump00 asked for clarification on the smite spells question on that same thread back on 6 Jun 2015 (3 days later), but it was not provided. https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/606193562317766656

It occurs to me that, as a result, even if the mount was eligible to get smite spells, it still couldn't use them being incapable of attacking, or more likely than not even wielding a weapon (which is also a requirement of the smite spells). So, double whammy of a no.

I agree with your interpretation of the mount being unable to attack while you're mounted. I believe Crawford has been very clear on that. (Lines doesn't like it and would change it in his games - and I agree upon condition of making the Beast Master Ranger better, too).

However, your interpretation of a weapon requirement is a bit off. The spell doesn't require you to be wielding a weapon, the spells simply says that the next time you hit a creature with a "Melee Weapon Attack." A Melee Weapon Attack is a specific thing in the book, and the mount does have a Melee Weapon Attack - it's hooves (see page 311 of PHB). Even unarmed strikes fall under that category, so you could punch someone for 1 damage + str + smite damage (more if you were also a monk).



Except that range self indicates it 'affects' you, not 'targets' you. Perhaps it's meant to be synonymous. Or perhaps it's a deliberate word choice limitation. Such deliberate limitations have been used in many places within the rules, so it would not surprise me. Twitter clarification on the specific word choice would be desirable.

Done! (https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/606193562317766656) Crawford has said that spells which affect you also target you. The book says that spells like Shield only affect you and are called Range: Self; Crawford says that Shield targets you. So when a Range: Self spells only affects you, it also only targets you - according to the book and Crawford combined.

Some are taking this even further and claiming that a spell which affects others in any way aso targets them - but if that were the case, it wouldn't be a Range: Self spell and it wouldn't require a Melee Weapon Attack - it would require a Spell Attack. And the range would be something else, like Range: Self (x ft, [shape]) or Touch.

[DivisibleByZero]

Done! (https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/606193562317766656) Crawford has said that spells which affect you also target you.

That is NOT what he said!
What he said was that spells with Range Self are either (a) or (b).
(a) being spells that affect only you. He then gave one single example.
(b) being spells that have you as the point of origin. He then gave one single example.
Once again you are extrapolating and attempting to claim that your extrapolation were his words. You are also completely discounting the mere possibility that this is case (b), and you are doing so because of said extrapolation, with no actual evidence that this is the correct way to read what he said.

Just imagine for one moment that (b) is a possibility here. Because not only is it a possibility, it's actually the way that things truly are.

[hacksnake]

Try to step back from the exact words used for a moment and think about what the spell is doing within the context of the game world.

That's exactly what I did.

The spell boils down to: "The next melee weapon attack you hit with during the duration of this spell is super extra awesome." In the context of the game world that sounds like it's imbuing you with the power to make a super extra melee weapon attack. I then checked how the language of the spell actually read RAW and it aligned with my less precise gut feel understanding.


On the other hand, they must target the foe, because they linger on the foe while you concentrate.

Except that's not at all what is happening.



The next time you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack..., your weapon flares with white-hot intensity, and the attack deals an extra 1d6 fire damage... and causes the target to ignite in flames.


The melee weapon attack deals extra damage and causes extra side effects. It's right there in plain English. The rest of the description describes what being "ignite[d] in flames" means in this context.


Exactly.
The problem is that this is a PoO spell. You guys just can't accept that fact because you're trying to lawyerize it with legalese instead of simply thinking about what the spell is and what it does and reading the entire description in context.
5e is all about taking things in context. You're all apparently failing at that on this one.

You understand that from my perspective I'm conducting a straight forward context analysis, a plain English reading, and then also a careful language parsing, right? They all align. From my perspective people saying this doesn't work are the ones trying to torture and warp the rules to lawyer it into a desired end goal.

I frankly don't care if the horse can share smite or not. I have no interest in playing paladins at all and none of the paladins I play with even have mounts. I am, however, interested in precise and accurate rulings.

I really can't understand how can you possibly torture the point of origin rules on pg. 204 to ever mean a self targeting range-of-self spell without any area of effect is a PoO spell. That is crazy talk unless I am missing something significant in the rules somewhere. Like off in another section or an errata I forgot about etc. Area spells that can affect multiple creatures are the only point of origin spells. This is incredibly clear. Smites are in no way shape or form anything like PoO spells.

EDIT: made a statement not circular w/r/t self targeting vs. range of self; added emphasis on the important part.

[DivisibleByZero]

Area spells that can affect multiple creatures are the only point of origin spells. This is incredibly clear.

How it it incredibly clear?
Where does it say that those are the ONLY spells such as this?

{thing1} is an example of {thing2} in no way implies that {thing2} is always and only {thing1}.

[hacksnake]

How it it incredibly clear?
Where does it say that those are the ONLY spells such as this?

{thing1} is an example of {thing2} in no way implies that {thing2} is always and only {thing1}.

You remind me of my years of philosophy classes. You have no business trying to acuse anyone else of lawyering as a negative trait and you know it. That is such a pot-kettle thing to do.

"Every area of effect spell as a point of origin" While strictly speaking this is an "All X are Y" sort of claim and you are correct that "No !X are Y" does not follow from "All X are Y" you're now treating this like a ridiculous semantic debate instead of what it is - a plain text representation of game rules meant to convey meaning.

This section is establishing the general rule about areas of effect which is that if you effect an area you have a point of origin. End of story. There is nothing to support the idea that any other sort of spell could be a point of origin spell. It is a really tortured reading to try to inject PoO into any non-AOE spell that doesn't explicitly talk about its PoO.

I'd say by default this is the general rule: only AOE Spells have a PoO because the general rule mentions no other examples. However specific beats general so there is space that a non-AoE spell could mention its point of origin and what that means thereby overriding the general rule.

[DivisibleByZero]

I'd say by default this is the general rule: only AOE Spells have a PoO because the general rule mentions no other examples. However specific beats general so there is space that a non-AoE spell could mention its point of origin and what that means thereby overriding the general rule.

Right.
And that's exactly what's happening here.
We know this because:
(1) the spell has a range of self,
(2) the caster is not the one affected by the spell,
(3) the target listed within the spell description is the creature attacked (they even use the word TARGET here).

Add it all up, and the sum is that smite spells are PoO spells.

[hacksnake]

Right.
And that's exactly what's happening here.
We know this because:
(1) the spell has a range of self,
(2) the caster is not the one affected by the spell,
(3) the target listed within the spell description is the creature attacked (they even use the word TARGET here).

Add it all up, and the sum is that smite spells are PoO spells.

I don't agree with (2). I believe the spell affects the caster imbuing him or her with the ability to make a super awesome melee weapon attack.

I don't agree with (3). I believe the melee weapon attack is causing the side effects to its target. I believe the spell itself still targets the caster.

This may or may not have interesting side effects with the overlapping effects on one creature rules; I'd need to think about it more.

Furthermore Smite spells never mention an area of effect or a point of origin so I see no reasonable cause to interpret them as overriding the general rule for PoOs & AoE spells.

EDIT: on (3) I believe the target wording is simply a convenience to not need to type out "the creature which your melee weapon attack targeted" several times.

[JackPhoenix]

Nope, you have to awaken a target of int 3 or less.

Which would mean apes (not that surprising, being smarter then ogres already) or octopi (surprisingly) can't be awakened

[Lines]

Which would mean apes (not that surprising, being smarter then ogres already) or octopi (surprisingly) can't be awakened

Apes are as intelligent as some players. 5e is... inconsistent with is use of the int score.

[Segev]

Except that range self indicates it 'affects' you, not 'targets' you. Perhaps it's meant to be synonymous. Or perhaps it's a deliberate word choice limitation. Such deliberate limitations have been used in many places within the rules, so it would not surprise me. Twitter clarification on the specific word choice would be desirable.5e doesn't make "deliberate word choice limitations" like that without spelling them out, precisely because it's supposed to be more colloquially written. It doesn't operate on keywords to that detailed an extent.




But I think, aside from all the logic that can be derived from the rules as I've seen them discussed, the most compelling case is this: the find steed spell clearly wants you to have your steed share in buffs that you cast upon yourself. The smite spells are buffs to your damage - only for one attack, but still buffs to YOUR damage dealt. Therefore, the smite spells are shared.

Whether your steed can make use of that or not is a question for a different set of rules (namely, those involving what actions, exactly, a mount can take and whether this steed follows those rules or not).

[DivisibleByZero]

Here's the problem if you're of the opinion that you are the target :
There are three possible targets.
1. The enemy being smote. This is the one that the spell description even calls the target. This is the one that takes the effects of the spell. This is the most logical target.
2. Your weapon. This is the case if you feel that the smite spell is a "charge up" for your attack. Somewhat logical, but less likely for the reasons described in point 1.
3. You. For this to be true you have to completely ignore that the description lists a target (and that the target listed is the one that takes the effect of the spell), and you have to disapprove of the theory that this is a charge up to your weapon.

Some of you agree that point 1 is the case.
Some of you argue point 2.
No one can reasonably attest that point 3 is the case. To do so is to claim that this isn't a weapon charge up, and to claim that what the spell description calls a target (which is the creature that takes the effect of the spell) is not targeted by the spell.

If that's the case, and that creature isn't the target, and this isn't a weapon charge up, then how do you justify that the paladin is the ONLY target of this spell, and that the creature being smote isn't a target, and that the weapon isn't a target?
Because that's what sharing the spell requires.

[Segev]

Here's the problem if you're of the opinion that you are the target :
There are three possible targets.
1. The enemy being smote. This is the one that the spell description even calls the target. This is the one that takes the effects of the spell. This is the most logical target. This is clearly not the case. The spell even specifies after the word "target" that it is "of your next attack," not of the spell. Trying to claim that means he's the target of the spell is deliberately ignoring text as written.

2. Your weapon. This is the case if you feel that the smite spell is a "charge up" for your attack. Somewhat logical, but less likely for the reasons described in point 1.An interesting claim, but since you can put your weapon away and draw another one while concentrating on the spell, and the smite effect still enhances the damage your next attack, with this new weapon, would do, it doesn't hold water. It's the next attack you make that is enhanced, regardless of what weapon you were wielding (if you were wielding any weapon at all) when you cast the spell.

3. You. For this to be true you have to completely ignore that the description lists a target (and that the target listed is the one that takes the effect of the spell), and you have to disapprove of the theory that this is a charge up to your weapon. Done and done. This is the correct interpretation.


No one can reasonably attest that point 3 is the case.I can and have, see above.


To do so is to claim that this isn't a weapon charge up,Correct.

and to claim that what the spell description calls a target (which is the creature that takes the effect of the spell) is not targeted by the spell.Also correct. Again: to claim the term "creature targeted" means "by this spell" is to deliberately ignore that the very next words are "by your next attack." (Or some paraphrase thereof, I confess to not looking at the spell right this second.)


If that's the case, and that creature isn't the target, and this isn't a weapon charge up, then how do you justify that the paladin is the ONLY target of this spell, and that the creature being smote isn't a target, and that the weapon isn't a target?
Because that's what sharing the spell requires.
Easily: it's a buff, on the paladin, making his next attack do more damage. It does not care what weapon he uses, whether he was holding it when he cast the spell or not. The creature that takes the extra damage is the target of the paladin's buffed attack. Not a "charged weapon." Not the spell. Of an attack, made by a paladin who was targeted by a buff spell that makes his damage on this attack do more damage.

[Segev]

To add to the weight of my point: If you cast a spell, call it "mightier blows," which says, "While you concentrate on this spell, creatures you target with melee attacks take an additional 10 hp of bludgeoning damage," would you claim that the spell is targeting every creature you attack for the duration of the spell, or would you say that you are the target of the spell and that you're dealing extra damage due to its buff?

Contrast, now, with hex, which calls out specifically that you must choose a target who, while you concentrate on the spell, takes extra necrotic damage from each of your attacks. When a spell targets somebody, it spells out that it is the spell doing the targeting. It doesn't say "target of your next attack" and mean "target of this spell." It says you select a target or uses language where "of this spell" is implied by the text. It never says "of [something else]" and means "of this spell."

[mgshamster]

Here are the targeting words for the spells:

The next time you hit a creature with a weapon attack before this spell ends, your weapon crackles with force, and the attack deals an extra 5d10 force damage to the target.

The next time you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack during this spell’s duration, your weapon flares with bright light, and the attack deals an extra 3d8 radiant damage to the target.

The next time you hit a creature with a weapon attack before this spell ends, the weapon gleams with astral radiance as you strike. The attack deals an extra 2d6 radiant damage to the target...


The next time you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack during this spell’s duration, your weapon pierces both body and mind, and the attack deals an extra 4d6 psychic damage to the target.

The first time you hit with a melee weapon attack during this spell’s duration, your weapon rings with thunder that is audible within 300 feet of you, and the attack deals an extra 2d6 thunder damage to the target.

The next time you hit with a melee weapon attack during this spell’s duration, your attack deals an extra 1d6 psychic damage. Additionally, if the target is a creature...

[Segev]

In each case, then, it is 1) "the next time you hit a creature with a weapon attack," which tells us that it doesn't matter what weapon you use, and that you could be unarmed when you cast it, pick up one weapon, discard it, and select another, and it still works; and 2) "the attack deals [extra damage] to the target," which tells us it is the attack, not the spell which is doing the targeting and the extra damage.

1) means that it must be targeting you - buffing you. It can't be targeting the weapon. It buffs you so that your next weapon attack to hit does more damage.

2) means that it is the target of the attack, not the target of the spell, which takes additional damage from the attack. Again, it buffed you, and your next weapon attack therefore deals extra damage to the target of that attack. Not of the spell - at no point does it indicate that the spell targets the one taking more damage. It also specifically indicates the spell is not dealing damage; the attack is.

[mgshamster]

In each case, then, it is 1) "the next time you hit a creature with a weapon attack," which tells us that it doesn't matter what weapon you use, and that you could be unarmed when you cast it, pick up one weapon, discard it, and select another, and it still works; and 2) "the attack deals [extra damage] to the target," which tells us it is the attack, not the spell which is doing the targeting and the extra damage.

1) means that it must be targeting you - buffing you. It can't be targeting the weapon. It buffs you so that your next weapon attack to hit does more damage.

2) means that it is the target of the attack, not the target of the spell, which takes additional damage from the attack. Again, it buffed you, and your next weapon attack therefore deals extra damage to the target of that attack. Not of the spell - at no point does it indicate that the spell targets the one taking more damage. It also specifically indicates the spell is not dealing damage; the attack is.

Another point: If the smite spell targeted your opponent, then it would have a range listed in feet, like the Hex spell does. Instead, it's listed as Self without any other descriptors.

[Segev]

Another point: If the smite spell targeted your opponent, then it would have a range listed in feet, like the Hex spell does. Instead, it's listed as Self without any other descriptors.

Or possibly "touch," like shocking grasp and the like, but your point stands.

[DivisibleByZero]

Here are the targeting words for the spells:

The next time you hit a creature with a weapon attack before this spell ends, your weapon crackles with force, and the attack deals an extra 5d10 force damage to the target.

The next time you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack during this spell’s duration, your weapon flares with bright light, and the attack deals an extra 3d8 radiant damage to the target.

The next time you hit a creature with a weapon attack before this spell ends, the weapon gleams with astral radiance as you strike. The attack deals an extra 2d6 radiant damage to the target...


The next time you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack during this spell’s duration, your weapon pierces both body and mind, and the attack deals an extra 4d6 psychic damage to the target.

The first time you hit with a melee weapon attack during this spell’s duration, your weapon rings with thunder that is audible within 300 feet of you, and the attack deals an extra 2d6 thunder damage to the target.

The next time you hit with a melee weapon attack during this spell’s duration, your attack deals an extra 1d6 psychic damage. Additionally, if the target is a creature...

Banishing: You forgot: "if this attack reduces the target to 50hp or less, you banish it.... If the target is native to a different plane....the target is incapacitated.... the target reappears... etc"
Blinding: You forgot "The target must succeed on a Con save or be blinded...."
Branding: You forgot: "the target sheds dim light and can't become invisible...."
Staggering: You forgot: "the target must make a Wis save or it has disadvantage and can't take reactions...."
Thunderous: You forgot: "if the target is a creature, it must succeed on a Str save or be pushed 10' away.... "
Wrathful: You forgot: "if the target is a creature, it must succeed on a Wis save or be frightened...."

You left off Searing Smite completely. That one says that it causes the target to ignite in flames, and at the start of each of its turns it has to make a Con save or it keeps burning, and that the target can be doused in water to put the flames out.

I have to say, those are some AWESOME self buffs there.
Doesn't sound like spell effects that are happening to another creature at all. Nope. Not at all.... :smallamused:
No one, and I truly mean NO PERSON can reasonably argue that it targets ONLY the Paladin. That argument is ridiculous.

Once again, you are NOT the target, no matter how much you attempt to convince us that you are.

[hacksnake]

Banishing: You forgot: "if this attack reduces the target to 50hp or less, you banish it.... If the target is native to a different plane....the target is incapacitated.... the target reappears... etc"
Blinding: You forgot "The target must succeed on a Con save or be blinded...."
Branding: You forgot: "the target sheds dim light and can't become invisible...."
Staggering: You forgot: "the target must make a Wis save or it has disadvantage and can't take reactions...."
Thunderous: You forgot: "if the target is a creature, it must succeed on a Str save or be pushed 10' away.... "
Wrathful: You forgot: "if the target is a creature, it must succeed on a Wis save or be frightened...."

You left off Searing Smite completely. That one says that it causes the target to ignite in flames, and at the start of each of its turns it has to make a Con save or it keeps burning, and that the target can be doused in water to put the flames out.

I have to say, those are some AWESOME self buffs there.
Doesn't sound like spell effects that are happening to another creature at all. Nope. Not at all.... :smallamused:
No one, and I truly mean NO PERSON can reasonably argue that it targets ONLY the Paladin. That argument is ridiculous.

Once again, you are NOT the target, no matter how much you attempt to convince us that you are.

Those are all extra effects of the attack. It's right in the spell description in plain English. I posted about it a couple times already.

Smite spells essentially give you a supernatural ability to do amazing things with melee weapon attacks. Those attacks deal extra damage and cause side effects. Some side effects linger for a duration that happens to be linked to the spell duration. Some side effects cause saves etc.

This is also consistent with how a number of monster attacks work. Many monsters make melee weapon attacks that force side effects. Like saves or else they take poison damage. That kind of a thing.

EDIT: anyway, you're clearly being unreasonable and you've just admitted that you don't care and you're sticking to your guns no matter what because no one reasonable could possibly disagree with you no matter what.

RAW pretty clearly doesn't support your interpretation. I'm OK with it if you can't come to terms with that so I think I'm done responding to this unless a new interesting branch of discussion pops up.

[DivisibleByZero]

Those are all extra effects of the attack. It's right in the spell description in plain English. I posted about it a couple times already

Your wonderful "plain english" line holds precisely zero water.
You want to talk about plain english? How about the plain English usage of the specific word "target" more than an average of 2.5 times per spell description.
If that's not plain english, I don't know what is. They repeat it, in plain english, with that exact word, almost two dozen times within those seven spell decsriptions. And not a single one of those times is it in reference to the caster.

But yeah, he's clearly the ONLY target, even though they say that he's not over and over and over and over again within the descriptions.

[Segev]

Your wonderful "plain english" line holds precisely zero water.
You want to talk about plain english? How about the plain English usage of the specific word "target" more than an average of 2.5 times per spell description.Because you're willfully ignoring that it is directly and obviously referring to the target of the attack, which is not the target of the spell. It's right there in the lines you quote, "If the target....then the attack also..." over and over, RIGHT AFTER the lines quoted in earlier posts that talk about how your next attack's target takes more damage.


If that's not plain english, I don't know what is. They repeat it, in plain english, with that exact word, almost two dozen times within those seven spell decsriptions. And not a single one of those times is it in reference to the caster.Indeed. And they're all referring to the target of the attack, very clearly, very plainly, which you are willfully ignoring. It is very plain English; there is literally no way to interpret it as you are so doing without pretending that the word "attack" isn't associated with it every single time. The kind of context-reading you're refusing to do can lead to ... actually, no, I can't say that on this forum, because it's too political. But your reading requires picking it apart and ignoring entire clauses which make no sense to exist if you ignore them. In other words: your reading is nonsensical.


But yeah, he's clearly the ONLY target, even though they say that he's not over and over and over and over again within the descriptions.Nowhere do they say that the target of the attack is the target of the spell. Not once. Every single time, the spell's text refers to a target of your next attack.

[DivisibleByZero]

; there is literally no way to interpret it as you are so doing without pretending that the word "attack" isn't associated with it every single time.
I suggest you read them again, because that is simply not true. Not even close. That attack is mentioned one time in each description. The word TARGET is used two or three or sometimes even more times, and only the first has any association with an attack.
The reason is simple. The reason is because the target of the Smite spell is the creature being smote. They continually repeat the word TARGET because that creature is a target of the spell.
It really is that simple, plain English.
Target = Target
Range = Range
Range =/= Target

[Vogonjeltz]

Then what's the point of making it an intelligent, loyal, strong creature that fights with you as a seamless unit if it's going to act no different from a regular horse? And for that matter, why on earth does it count as controlled? This seems completely at odds with the actual point of the paladin's mount if all that stuff makes absolutely no difference.

The point is that an uncontrolled mount would be very undesirable in that it does whatever it wants (i.e. it's DM controlled). This gets the benefit of being Intelligent and controlled.

i.e. It won't run off into the woods on DM whim because it doesn't like the looks of the fight. Your average intelligent mount would be vulnerable to doing that. And in any event, it wouldn't do what the player wanted anyway.


Edit: In fairness to you, it starts out with the keyword "melee weapon attack," and then goes on to simply reference a "weapon." So I can see discussion arising on that point.

That's pretty much what I was getting at, the spell specifies that a weapon is being used.


5e doesn't make "deliberate word choice limitations" like that without spelling them out, precisely because it's supposed to be more colloquially written. It doesn't operate on keywords to that detailed an extent.

It's not using key words, it's using precision language. Anytime the game refers to weapon attacks, melee weapon attacks, ranged spell attacks, etc... it's doing the same thing. It's using one term instead of another in order to deliberately exclude or include specific abilities. The Monk's Martial Arts feature does the same thing. Numerous feats and features do this same thing in linking bonus actions to the Attack action (as opposed to Multi-Attack or Cast a Spell).

Most of the confusion I've seen has been a result of the reader conflating two or more terms that are deliberately mutually exclusive. The books have a casual style making them easy to read, but the actual wording is precise.

[Talamare]

I think the real question of the day is, if your mount is intelligent...

Can it read a book?

[DivisibleByZero]

Targets
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).

And then you ignore the fact that the spell repeatedly states who the target is, while ignoring the fact that none of them (none, not even once) ever call the Caster the target.
The rules for Targets tell us that the description will indicate who the targets are.
In this case they do, repeatedly.
And yet you are all ignoring it because.... well, I honestly don't know why.

[Segev]

Targets
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).

And then you ignore the fact that the spell repeatedly states who the target is, while ignoring the fact that none of them (none, not even once) ever call the Caster the target.
The rules for Targets tell us that the description will indicate who the targets are.
In this case they do, repeatedly.
And yet you are all ignoring it because.... well, I honestly don't know why.

Look. You're not even acknowledging what I'm saying in refutation of your point, which means you aren't refuting my point. You are simply restating yours, which I have refuted. Repeatedly.

The "target" to which the spell refers in each place you've quoted very, very clearly refers to the target of the attack. You have yet to demonstrate how that is not the case. I have pointed out clearly that the context indicates it, because the first place "target" is mentioned is in conjunction with you making an attack on a creature, who is the target of that attack. And each point thereafter, it refers to that target, without ever once saying anything even vaguely implying, "the target of this attack is the target of this spell."

The target of the attack does get a bunch of stuff done to him, including damage from the attack, extra damage from the attack, and extra effects the attack inflicts. The spell explicitly states the attack inflicts these effects. Therefore, the spell does not. Therefore, the spell is nto targeting the creature; the attack is.

Please acknowledge my refutation of your point and try to disprove it, rather than dancing around the issue and restating your point while pretending I haven't pointed this out.

Once again: the attack has a target; this is the target referred to in the text of the spell each time "target" is mentioned. There is no other way to read it that makes sense, because there is no place for "the spell" to even be the implied subject of the sentences used.

[DivisibleByZero]

I don't have to refute your point.
It's a ridiculous argument, and the rules for spell target refute it for me.

Targets
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 spell's description tells you whether the spell targets cretures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect.

What does the spell description call the target? Repeatedly? Over and over and over again?
Does it ever once refer to the Caster when using this word?
It does not. Because the Caster is not the target.
Simmple. Easy Peasy Japanese-y.

[Mjolnirbear]

I'm actually torn.

I used to be firmly in the "can't share smite spells" camp. Someone in this thread pointed out something that made me sit up and take notice.

Fire Shield is definitely a self-sufficiency that damages attackers on a trigger.
Ensnaring Strike is worded very much like a smite spell.
Aura of Vitality (and all the other Aura spells) also have a range of self.
Armor of Agathys has a range of self.

They are all 'you are empowered' + 'this happens' and either 'around you' or 'with this trigger'.

In theme, and function, and mechanics, they are comparable to smite spells.

In all these examples I gave, never ever is another creature listed as a target, except Ensnaring Strike . Fire Shield says the attacker. The auras say non-hostile creature. Armour of Agathys says 'the creature'.

The smites all say target. But I can now picture very clearly a soft glow waiting to be discharged.

Lightning arrow specifies target. So does Magic Jar, which is very interesting. You are definitely affecting yourself. You are safer from death, ghostlike, and capable of possessing someone who is also listed as a target. It's not just fluff. You change yourself, and then you can target your enemy with a special attack.

Produce flame is the same. You make a flame, and it's like a torch. Then you get the ability to throw it at a target.

Surfing has a range of self and indicates a target.

Spirit Guardians, something I would have assumed was a buff, does some significant damage. It does not say target.

Vampire Touch works almost exactly like a smite, and says target. However, you keep this self-buff for the duration and make attack after attack. Nothing says each target must be the same. This, perhaps, is the closest to what I picture a smite spell working like at the moment.

Flame Blade says target.

So... I can see both sides. But I find myself on the other side now: smite spells are a self-buff. The reason? The explanation of ranges on page 202. It says there are two types of spells with a range of Self. The ones where you are a point of origin, in which case it will be followed by a shape and distance; or it targets you.

It feels incredibly cheesy, and I still might houserule it, but RAW, it seems that the rules describing range and the text of Find Steed are both including Smite Spells as spells targeting Self.

[Segev]

I don't have to refute your point.
It's a ridiculous argument, and the rules for spell target refute it for me.

Targets
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 spell's description tells you whether the spell targets cretures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect.

What does the spell description call the target? Repeatedly? Over and over and over again?
Does it ever once refer to the Caster when using this word?
It does not. Because the Caster is not the target.
Simmple. Easy Peasy Japanese-y.

So, when I point out that your reference does not actually apply, and use precise explanations of why, all you have to refute me is, "nuh-uh!"?


If you're going to read, "The next time you make a weapon attack, the target takes an additional X damage, and if Y happens, the attack also inflicts Z effect on the target," and deny that the "target" is the target of the attack, and claim that it is instead the target of the spell, despite the fact that it is explicitly the attack which deals the extra effects...

Well, you're not reading English. You're reading some made-up language which injects antecedents that are neither explicit nor implied to shift the subject to something that you have to divine from...whatever point it is you want to prove, I suppose, since there's nothing in the text to suggest that the target referred to is "of the spell."

[mgshamster]

I don't have to refute your point.
It's a ridiculous argument, and the rules for spell target refute it for me.

Targets
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 spell's description tells you whether the spell targets cretures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect.

What does the spell description call the target? Repeatedly? Over and over and over again?
Does it ever once refer to the Caster when using this word?
It does not. Because the Caster is not the target.
Simmple. Easy Peasy Japanese-y.

Let's see what every smite spell says is being affected by the spell (and we know from Jeremy Crawford that the thing(s) a spell affects is the spell's target):

The spell specifically states that your next (Melee)* Weapon Attack is being modified by the spell. Therefore, the Weapon Attack is the thing being affected, therefore it's the target of the spell. Since it's your Weapon Attack, then by extension you're the target (since you can never target someone's Weapon Attack without also targeting them).

*Some smite spells specifically mention Melee Weapon Attack, others just say Weapon Attack - meaning it could be Melee or Ranged.

[DivisibleByZero]

So, when I point out that your reference does not actually apply, and use precise explanations of why, all you have to refute me is, "nuh-uh!"?

No. What I'm doing is quoting the relevant rule about spell targets.
It's right there in the book.

You're the one effectively saying "nuh-uh!" by ignoring the rules for spell targeting, and then fabricating reasons why those rules don't apply, even though you have absolutely zero basis for believing this to be so.
So when you wave your hands at the relevant rule, I simply quote the rule for you again.
I'll continue to do so until you acknowledge that the rule for spell targets is relevant and appropriate for a discussion about the target of a spell.
The rules state that the target will be indicated within the spell description.
Within the spell description for the smite spells, they indicate that the target is the subject of the Paladin's attack. They do it repeatedly.
You ignore it repeatedly, which means you're also ignoring the rules about spell targets.
And then you have the gall to tell me that my interpretation is in no way supported by the RAW, when YOU are the one that's ignoring the RAW.

[Gwendol]

It's a difficult position to argue that the smite spell only targets the caster, when the actual effects of the spell are felt by the caster's target. It looks like a highly directed PoO spell to me.

[Zalabim]

Smite spells don't care when you make the attack anyway. They care when you hit. They care what you hit, not what you aimed at, if something interferes with that. As long as we're using a plain reading of the text, let's actually use the text. Smite spells trigger on Hit (step 3), not Attack (step 1).

[hacksnake]

It's a difficult position to argue that the smite spell only targets the caster, when the actual effects of the spell are felt by the caster's target. It looks like a highly directed PoO spell to me.

I will break this down one final time. Emphasis in quotes mine otherwise it's Searing Smite from PHB. This is not a difficult position to argue. It's much more difficult to torture the spell rules into saying a non-area of effect spell with a range of self that doesn't mention a point of origin is, somehow, a point of origin spell.

"The next time you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack during the spell's duration..."
You are targeted by an effect that does something when you next hit a creature with a melee weapon attack. I bet the spell will next tell me all the interesting things that happen when I hit a creature with a melee weapon attack.

"<fluff>... the attack deals an extra 1d6 fire damage..."
Great my attack is super awesome and deals extra damage! Nice!

"...to the target..."
Ok... what else can an attack deal extra damage to other than its target?

"... and causes the target to ignite in flames."
Ahhhh, ok, we had to establish some way to refer back to "the creature we just hit with a melee weapon attack" (i.e. - "the target of the melee weapon attack") to make the rest of the spell wording not insane. Got it. It's unfortunate that they said "the target" even though the wording makes perfect sense since the creature is the target of the attack. I bet that is going to confuse some people. It would have been more clear to have said "the creature"; that could have headed off a lot of senseless debate.

"At the start of each of its turns until the spell ends... blahblahblabh"
Ah ok so this is what it means to have been ignited in flames by the melee weapon attack. Cool.

EDIT:
So the main points are that the spell is crystal clear that the attack is dealing extra damage and the attack is causing the ignite effect.

It never says anything to indicate that the spell itself is directly effecting the target of the attack. You need to add words to the spell description that aren't there to read it that way. If we're going to start adding words to spell descriptions to make them do what we want then I'm going to make a paladin that does an extra 1000d6 damage on smites because I just added language to the spell to make it true.

The target of the attack is suffering the effects of the attack. Not the effects of the spell itself directly. This means that it no longer follows that the creature targeted by the attack must be targeted by the spell.

EDIT2:
In case it wasn't crystal clear - the effect of the spell is to give you the ability to make a super amazing melee weapon attack. You are under that effect. That effect makes it so your next melee weapon attack that hits does amazing things.

[Gwendol]

It's not significantly different from delivering a shocking grasp. You can certainly argue that the caster is the target also of this spell, and that the spell allows the caster to deliver a super amazing touch.
Doesn't change the fact that the target of the melee (touch) attack is the one receiving the effect of the spell.

[hacksnake]

It's not significantly different from delivering a shocking grasp. You can certainly argue that the caster is the target also of this spell, and that the spell allows the caster to deliver a super amazing touch.
Doesn't change the fact that the target of the melee (touch) attack is the one receiving the effect of the spell.

They are significantly different. Shocking grasp says "Make a melee spell attack" etc.

If you think they are the same then you're carelessly mixing up different rules concepts.

[mgshamster]

Smite spells don't care when you make the attack anyway. They care when you hit. They care what you hit, not what you aimed at, if something interferes with that. As long as we're using a plain reading of the text, let's actually use the text. Smite spells trigger on Hit (step 3), not Attack (step 1).

True, and to even get to Step 3, you first have to do Step 1, which is pick a target.

Since the spell has Range: Self, and the text of the spell has you make a weapon attack (not a spell attack), we can deduce that the target in the spell description is the target of the weapon attack.

The only way to read the spell so the word target references the target of the spell (and not the target of the attack) is to ignore the lack of AoE descriptors (x ft, [shape]), to pretend that the clear rules for AoE spells which encompass Line, Cone, Sphere, Cube, and Cylinder aren't the only AoE spells in the game - despite the lack of any other type of AoE spell - to ignore the targeting text in the range rules on page 202, to ignore Crawford's tweets saying the Range: Self targets you, to ignore the rules of English where the word target should he directly referenced to its most recent qualifier, to again ignore the rules of English where a repeated use of the word target somehow changes qualifiers without any new qualifying statements, and to also believe that "just because the rules don't say it, it doesn't mean it isn't" despite the fact that no where else in the books do the rules ever use a negative qualifier (all the rules are about what you can do and what is, not about what you can't do and what isn't).

It takes all of that to be able to conclude that this is an Area of Effect spell that just happens to not have an area of effect but still just happens to be a point of origin spell.

[mgshamster]

It's not significantly different from delivering a shocking grasp. You can certainly argue that the caster is the target also of this spell, and that the spell allows the caster to deliver a super amazing touch.
Doesn't change the fact that the target of the melee (touch) attack is the one receiving the effect of the spell.

So your argument is that a spell with Range: Self that has you make a Weapon Attack is the same as a spell with Range: Touch that has you make a Spell Attack?

This goes directly into my post earlier where I said that if the smite spell was intended to target the opponent, it would have Range: Touch or Range: x ft, and require a spell attack.

Also, if this is truly the case, then it's not an AoE spell with a PoO, so the PoO rules don't apply. You can't have both.

[Gwendol]

Well, the situation is similar to holding a charge (concentration), and the spell delivers on a hit.

[DivisibleByZero]

EDIT2:
In case it wasn't crystal clear - the effect of the spell is to give you the ability to make a super amazing melee weapon attack. You are under that effect. That effect makes it so your next melee weapon attack that hits does amazing things.

You could just as easily argue that fireball allows you to throw one super effective ball of fire, so it's a self buff. Or other ridiculousness, ad nauseum.

I think it's much simpler and more logical to assert that the next errata should change the range from Self --> to --> Self (one weapon attack).

Then you wouldn't have to ignore any of the rules, or attempt to decide which words are fluff thereby ignoring direct keywords like Target, or any other nonsense.
They probably only didn't list the Range that way from day one because they explain right in the rules for spell targets that Range Self means either (a) or (b), this one being case (b), and it should be obvious that the Paladins isn't smiting himself.
The problem isn't with the spell desription.
The problem is with the fact that players are still used to reading the rulebooks as if they're playing 3.5e instead of 5e.
This is nothing we haven't seen before.
You need to read things in context in 5e, and you're failing to do that.

[hacksnake]

Well, the situation is similar to holding a charge (concentration), and the spell delivers on a hit.

In the same sense that hitting something with fireball "is similar to" hitting something with flaming oil I suppose. However these things are completely different sorts of things and different rules apply to them in spite of there being some superficial similarities.

[hacksnake]

No one, and I truly mean NO PERSON can reasonably argue that it targets ONLY the Paladin. That argument is ridiculous.

Once again, you are NOT the target, no matter how much you attempt to convince us that you are.

Mate, you already boxed yourself out of the set of people trying to have a rational discussion with this. You're talking; not discussing. I'm trying to discuss.

I'm interested in ending the dialogue with the correct answer. I don't much care if I entered it with the correct answer or not. I'm happy to be wrong and as soon as someone adds some relevant new information to this thread that demonstrates in some reasonable manner how I'm wrong I'll change my opinion.

[Captbrannigan]

You could just as easily argue that fireball allows you to throw one super effective ball of fire, so it's a self buff. Or other ridiculousness, ad nauseum.

I think it's much simpler and more logical to assert that the next errata should change the range from Self --> to --> Self (one weapon attack).

Then you wouldn't have to ignore any of the rules, or attempt to decide which words are fluff thereby ignoring direct keywords like Target, or any other nonsense.
They probably only didn't list the Range that way from day one because they explain right in the rules for spell targets that Range Self means either (a) or (b), this one being case (b), and it should be obvious that the Paladins isn't smiting himself.
The problem isn't with the spell desription.
The problem is with the fact that players are still used to reading the rulebooks as if they're playing 3.5e instead of 5e.
This is nothing we haven't seen before.
You need to read things in context in 5e, and you're failing to do that.

Got it, Smite spells target the creature you attack. Creatures targeting by spells roll against your spell attack. To smite, you must hit with a weapon attack, hit with a spell attack, and then they get another save against the additional affects. That's certainly the designers' intent since they thought combat should get bogged down with several rolls to determine a single action.

You're being willfully ignorant. As others have mentioned, "target" in this context is a shorthand for "the creature targeted by your weapon attack." If the spell were targeting the creature itself, you couldn't cast it before opening the door, you couldn't switch targets between when you cast the spell and when you make a weapon attack, and as I said before they get to roll against your spell attack to see if the smite lands.

Have fun forcing players to buff in combat and land almost none of their smites. Sounds like the rider effects of the smite spells aren't worth it compared to Divine Smite, which simply buffs you for your next attack.


I'm of the opinion this argument is settled, and the more interesting questions have to do with what makes Find Steed better than buying a horse. I think the designers got carried away with regards to Beastmaster companions and Palladian/Bard Mounts. Having a player get two turns in combat lengthens combat, so screw verisimilitude - your "pets" can't do diddly.

[Daishain]

This is getting ridiculous, we need a resolution fast.


Got it, Smite spells target the creature you attack. Creatures targeting by spells roll against your spell attack. To smite, you must hit with a weapon attack, hit with a spell attack, and then they get another save against the additional affects. That's certainly the designers' intent since they thought combat should get bogged down with several rolls to determine a single action.
Not only is that absolutely nowhere in the rules, there are specific examples of targeted spells that only require an AC roll, but do not allow a save, targeted spells that allow a save but do not require an AC roll, and even a few that require neither. So stop speaking nonsense.


What you are referring to matches the description of True Strike's duration. However, most smites last at least 1 minute, a.k.a. 10 rounds a.k.a. 60 seconds.
What if your initial attack after you cast the spell fails? You rolled a 1 on d20 to hit. Spell is still there. Now, you pick up another weapon with a +1 enhancement to see if it would hit better. Zero complications in swapping the weapon. A simple conclusion out of this is: The smite spell doesn't affect a single weapon. It affects 'you'. Your attacks deliver the effect, but as long as you don't hit, the spell affects you and just by the laws of magic, happens to be harmless to you. So what? Easily comparable with Vampiric Touch (btw, also a 'range: self' spell) which is harmful to your target but beneficial to you. Would the Vampiric Touch qualify for Find Steed shenanigans, I won't even try to dig into that. If someone else want to, be my guest.
Could've sworn it was one round, eh, whatever. The spells are still designed to be discharged almost immediately. I have literally never seen a smite spell go longer than a round before it is discharged. Assuming I'm correct about the alternative target being the weapon rather than the wielder, in regards to whether or not the spell should make the DM and player keep track of which specific weapon the spell is imbuing, which option is more in line with 5E's KISS philosophy?



An interesting claim, but since you can put your weapon away and draw another one while concentrating on the spell, and the smite effect still enhances the damage your next attack, with this new weapon, would do, it doesn't hold water. It's the next attack you make that is enhanced, regardless of what weapon you were wielding (if you were wielding any weapon at all) when you cast the spell.
As mentioned above, fiddly rules that require additional items to be tracked are not in keeping with 5E's design philosophy. Is it really that difficult to believe they chose to gloss over that point? Do recall the spell descriptions of each smite. The majority of them describe the weapon lighting up with imbued power.


It boils down to this, the only person who is experiencing any direct effects of the spell is the attacked target. If the spell was augmenting the caster's ability to strike, one would expect it to be effective for more than a single attack. Perhaps a variant of magic weapon or divine favor that only lasts a single round. Since it is limited to that single strike, one must assume that it is augmenting said strike. Either the caster (or his weapon which makes more sense from a fluff perspective) is the delivery vehicle for the spell, and/or the final trigger for the actual casting of the spell is a successful melee weapon attack. In other words, the caster is either the point of origin, or not involved at all. In neither case are we speaking of a self buff that only effects the caster.

[DivisibleByZero]

Not only is that absolutely nowhere in the rules, there are specific examples of targeted spells that only require an AC roll, but do not allow a save, targeted spells that allow a save but do not require an AC roll, and even a few that require neither. So stop that ridiculous nonsense.

Right.
And now we have spells in SCAG that require a weapon attack roll.
And before anyone claims that those spells have a range listed in feet, the difference between those cantrips in SCAG and a Smite spell is that the Smites can be held until an attack hits (and also generally have a secondary effect to be concentrated on), whereas the cantrips either hit or miss and that's the end of it. The Caster is not the target, he's the point of origin.

You guys want more examples?
Lightning Arrow.
It has a range of Self and very similar wording.
But Crawford specifically states (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/15/volley-with-lightning-arrow/) that it affects one piece of amunition.
He also calls (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/21/does-the-splash-damage-of-lightning-arrow-affects-the-original-target/) the creature struck by the arrow the target.

In either case, the Ranger is not the target of the spell which has a range of Self.... with no parenthesis listed after the range of Self.


It boils down to this, the only person who is experiencing any direct effects of the spell is the attacked target. Either the caster (or his weapon which makes more sense from a fluff perspective) is the delivery vehicle for the spell, or the final trigger for the actual casting of the spell is a successful melee weapon attack. In other words, the caster is either the point of origin, or not involved at all. In neither case are we speaking of a self buff that only effects the caster.

Precisely.

[Lines]

Right.
And now we have spells in SCAG that require a weapon attack roll.
And before anyone claims that those spells have a range listed in feet, the difference between those cantrips in SCAG and a Smite spell is that the Smites can be held until an attack hits (and also generally have a secondary effect to be concentrated on), whereas the cantrips either hit or miss and that's the end of it. The fact that the Smites can be held until they hit the target is the reason that they have a range of Self. Because the Caster is not the target, he's the point of origin.

Of course he is. He's the target of buff that lets him have an extra effect on his next attack. Or are is haste not a spell that targets you, just because it gives you attacks against enemies? By the same logic haste isn't a self buff either because those attacks target enemies.

[Daishain]

Of course he is. He's the target of buff that lets him have an extra effect on his next attack. Or are is haste not a spell that targets you, just because it gives you attacks against enemies? By the same logic haste isn't a self buff either because those attacks target enemies.
Haste's primary effect is to speed up the subject and lasts for a period of time regardless of what the caster does while under the effect of the spell. Smite's primary effect is an offensive burst of magical energy, and ends the moment that burst is used up. They are not at all the same thing.

[hacksnake]

This is getting ridiculous, we need a resolution fast.
Pretty sure we have a general consensus with 1 or so nay sayers.



Not only is that absolutely nowhere in the rules, there are specific examples of targeted spells that only require an AC roll, but do not allow a save, targeted spells that allow a save but do not require an AC roll, and even a few that require neither. So stop speaking nonsense.
I think you got 'wooshed' & Captbrannigan was doing a Reductio ad absurdum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) sort of deal to demonstrate why DivisibleByZero was wrong by assuming it his point was right and then exploring the end result of that assumption.



It boils down to this, the only person who is experiencing any direct effects of the spell is the attacked target. Either the caster (or his weapon which makes more sense from a fluff perspective) is the delivery vehicle for the spell, or the final trigger for the actual casting of the spell is a successful melee weapon attack. In other words, the caster is either the point of origin, or not involved at all. In neither case are we speaking of a self buff that only effects the caster.

This is actually circular. You're asserting that the target of the attack is experiencing the direct effects of the spell in order to substantiate your conclusion when the spell itself gives no cause to interpret it that way. It's bad reasoning which undermines your premise which in turn undermines your conclusion.

The spell clearly states that the attack does extra damage. The attack causes side effects. This in turn happens because you made a melee weapon attack that hit a creature while under the effects of the smite spell.

If you stop injecting things into the spell that aren't there in the first place it is really rather clear. You are not "delivering the spell". Your whole chain of reasoning is built on assuming the conclusion.

If we accept your preconditions (i.e. - that you are "delivering the spell" and that "the target of the attack suffer the effects of the spell") then we are explicitly agreeing that the target of the attacks is in fact the target of the spell. However, no one has presented any reasonable set of information that substantiates these claims without injecting wording into the spells which is simply not there.

EDIT: minor wording.

[hacksnake]

Haste's primary effect is to speed up the subject and lasts for a period of time regardless of what the caster does while under the effect of the spell. Smite's primary effect is an offensive burst of magical energy, and ends the moment that burst is used up. They are not at all the same thing.

Again you are reading the spell in a specific way that already assumes your conclusion. You are assuming that the smite spell is being delivered by the melee weapon attack. Nothing in the spell wording supports that. The spell wording actually very clearly refutes that by saying that the attack deals extra damage. The attack causes the ignited condition. Etc.

[Daishain]

Again you are reading the spell in a specific way that already assumes your conclusion. You are assuming that the smite spell is being delivered by the melee weapon attack. Nothing in the spell wording supports that. The spell wording actually very clearly refutes that by saying that the attack deals extra damage. The attack causes the ignited condition. Etc.
I'm not assuming anything in regards to the statement in question. Whether it is the weapon that causes it, the caster through the weapon, or a separate spell effect delivered via attack, the end result is someone getting blasted in the face with fire magic, or thundering magic, or whatever. That is the spell's purpose and principle effect.

This is clearly distinct from haste, whose principle purpose and effect is to change how swiftly the subject moves.


Pretty sure we have a general consensus with 1 or so nay sayers.no, we really don't, too many unresolved issues and not enough of a majority on either side to declare a "win" That combined with the fact that every dev confirmation we've had thus far is negative (even though they have yet to cover all possibilities) makes this far from resolved.




I think you got 'wooshed' & Captbrannigan was doing a Reductio ad absurdum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) sort of deal to demonstrate why DivisibleByZero was wrong by assuming it his point was right and then exploring the end result of that assumption.In order to be effective, Reductio ad absurdum arguments must logically follow from the original statement. Capt's attempt at it did not do so, for the reasons I pointed out.





This is actually circular. You're asserting that the target of the attack is experiencing the direct effects of the spell in order to substantiate your conclusion when the spell itself gives no cause to interpret it that way. It's bad reasoning which undermines your premise which in turn undermines your conclusion.

The spell clearly states that the attack does extra damage. The attack causes side effects. This in turn happens because you made a melee weapon attack that hit a creature while under the effects of the smite spell.

If you stop injecting things into the spell that aren't there in the first place it is really rather clear. You are not "delivering the spell". Your whole chain of reasoning is built on assuming the conclusion.

If we accept your preconditions (i.e. - that you are "delivering the spell" and that "the target of the attack suffer the effects of the spell") then we are explicitly agreeing that the target of the attacks is in fact the target of the spell. However, no one has presented any reasonable set of information that substantiates these claims without injecting wording into the spells which is simply not there.

EDIT: minor wording.Ultimately, the end purpose of the spell to use energy to effect an opponent. Quibble all you wish about the means of doing so, that is the reason the spell exists.

If we were speaking of a spell at causes some change to either the caster or the weapon, we would expect that change to last for a period of time rather than being single use only. Haste, Divine Favor, and Magic Weapon are all spells that represent this idea.

Since the spell discharges upon a hit, the profile matches exactly what I've been speaking of, a deliverable packet of magic energy.

[DivisibleByZero]

No one has any comment on my Lightning Arrow comparison?
It's basically the same thing were talking about.
1. It's range Self.
2. It's concentration
3. It needs to be delivered via a weapon attack.
4. It empowers the next attack with special circumstances.
5. Crawford calls the creature hit the target.
6. Crawford states that it affects the ammuntion.
ie: The Ranger is not the target and it is not a self targeting buff, just like the Paladin is not the target of his smite spells and they are not self targeting buffs.

[hacksnake]

I'm not assuming anything in regards to the statement in question. Whether it is the weapon that causes it, the caster through the weapon, or a separate spell effect delivered via attack, the end result is someone getting blasted in the face with fire magic, or thundering magic, or whatever. That is the spell's purpose and principle effect.

This is clearly distinct from haste, whose principle purpose and effect is to change how swiftly the subject moves.

I understand your point that the specific outcomes of being under the effect of haste are different than smites.

None the less, I believe you are reading smite in a circular fashion.

Change your wording like this:
"the end result is someone getting blasted in the face with fire magic damage, or thundering magic damage, or whatever." You're assuming that the spell is dealing the damage directly instead of the attack dealing damage. Lots of attacks in the monster manual have extra damage dice and side effects that trigger saves or leave lingering effects with no spells involved at all.

Do you see the distinction I'm drawing?

Consider this made up spell:

Hacksnake's Amazing Flaming Attacks
1st-level evocation

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: V
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute

Whenever you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack during the spell's duration, your weapon flares with white-hot intensity, and the attack deals an extra 1d6 fire damage to the target.

Does this target you? I think it would be pretty obvious that it does. There are only two meaningful distinctions between this spell and Searing Smite:

There is no language about side effects of the attack to muddle the issue.
The spell continues effecting you beyond the first hit.


Neither of these is materially relevant to the question of who is being targeted by the spell or what is dealing the extra damage. The attack is dealing the extra damage in both cases because that's what the spell says. The attack deals extra damage because you are under the effects of the spell that says your attacks deal extra damage.

[Daishain]

I understand your point that the specific outcomes of being under the effect of haste are different than smites.

None the less, I believe you are reading smite in a circular fashion.

Change your wording like this:
"the end result is someone getting blasted in the face with fire magic damage, or thundering magic damage, or whatever." You're assuming that the spell is dealing the damage directly instead of the attack dealing damage. Lots of attacks in the monster manual have extra damage dice and side effects that trigger saves or leave lingering effects with no spells involved at all.

Do you see the distinction I'm drawing?
The distinction is irrelevant, the additional damage and rider effects in question are the result of the smite spell, and are neither a normal, nor an enduring part of the attack in question. Were we speaking of a change to the weapon or the caster, that might be different, but as is...


Consider this made up spell:


Does this target you? I think it would be pretty obvious that it does. There are only two meaningful distinctions between this spell and Searing Smite:

There is no language about side effects of the attack to muddle the issue.
The spell continues effecting you beyond the first hit.


Neither of these is materially relevant to the question of who is being targeted by the spell or what is dealing the extra damage. The attack is dealing the extra damage in both cases because that's what the spell says. The attack deals extra damage because you are under the effects of the spell that says your attacks deal extra damage.Let's take a look at Divine Favor, and Elemental weapon, both of which have essentially the same effect as your hypothetical spell. Let's see, Divine favor speaks specifically of imbuing the caster with "divine radiance". Elemental weapon is even more clear, a specific nonmagical weapon you touch is altered by the spell.

Divine Favor matches your interpretation of how Smite spells work, with Elemental Weapon being a similar nonsharable variant. But their spell descriptions clearly describe their target as being other than the victim(s) of the caster's attacks. None of the Smite spells do the same. I wonder why that might be?

[mgshamster]

No one has any comment on my Lightning Arrow comparison?
It's basically the same thing were talking about.
1. It's range Self.
2. It's concentration
3. It needs to be delivered via a weapon attack.
4. It empowers the next attack with special circumstances.
5. Crawford calls the creature hit the target.
6. Crawford states that it affects the ammuntion.
ie: The Ranger is not the target, just like the Paladin is not the target of his smite spells.

I already did, a page or so ago. And again, the "target" is the target of the attack, not the target of the spell. The ammo (aka your stuff, aka stuff that's on yourself, aka self) is the target of the spell.

Unless you want to argue that the equipment you hold is not a part of you for the rules, then Lightning Bolt does not support your argument. And if you really want to argue that the equipment you hold is not a part of you, then you have no place arguing that everyone else is not reading the game in the simplistic terms of 5e - it's purely hypocritical.

Not a single spell in the PHB has Range: Ammo (or othe equipment). All the spells which affect your equipment affect you.

Heck, there's only 7 types of range: Distance, Self, Self (x ft, shape), Touch, Special, Sight, and Unlimited.

Distance targets something over there, touch targets something within your reach, self targets you, self (x ft, shape) targets something within a specific distance/volume from you, sight targets something that you can see, unlimited targets something anywhere, and special is unique.

A better spell for comparison would be Divine Favor - it has a Range of Self, it's evocation, it's concentration, and the effect is that you deal more damage with your weapon attacks when you hit. Smite spells do the same exact thing, plus a little extra.

[Segev]

I will break this down one final time. Emphasis in quotes mine otherwise it's Searing Smite from PHB. This is not a difficult position to argue. It's much more difficult to torture the spell rules into saying a non-area of effect spell with a range of self that doesn't mention a point of origin is, somehow, a point of origin spell.

"The next time you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack during the spell's duration..."
You are targeted by an effect that does something when you next hit a creature with a melee weapon attack. I bet the spell will next tell me all the interesting things that happen when I hit a creature with a melee weapon attack.

"<fluff>... the attack deals an extra 1d6 fire damage..."
Great my attack is super awesome and deals extra damage! Nice!

"...to the target..."
Ok... what else can an attack deal extra damage to other than its target?

"... and causes the target to ignite in flames."
Ahhhh, ok, we had to establish some way to refer back to "the creature we just hit with a melee weapon attack" (i.e. - "the target of the melee weapon attack") to make the rest of the spell wording not insane. Got it. It's unfortunate that they said "the target" even though the wording makes perfect sense since the creature is the target of the attack. I bet that is going to confuse some people. It would have been more clear to have said "the creature"; that could have headed off a lot of senseless debate.

"At the start of each of its turns until the spell ends... blahblahblabh"
Ah ok so this is what it means to have been ignited in flames by the melee weapon attack. Cool.

EDIT:
So the main points are that the spell is crystal clear that the attack is dealing extra damage and the attack is causing the ignite effect.

It never says anything to indicate that the spell itself is directly effecting the target of the attack. You need to add words to the spell description that aren't there to read it that way. If we're going to start adding words to spell descriptions to make them do what we want then I'm going to make a paladin that does an extra 1000d6 damage on smites because I just added language to the spell to make it true.

The target of the attack is suffering the effects of the attack. Not the effects of the spell itself directly. This means that it no longer follows that the creature targeted by the attack must be targeted by the spell.

EDIT2:
In case it wasn't crystal clear - the effect of the spell is to give you the ability to make a super amazing melee weapon attack. You are under that effect. That effect makes it so your next melee weapon attack that hits does amazing things.Extremely good and thorough analysis of the way the spell is written, detailing exactly what it says, what the words mean in context, and how it works. Good job!


You could just as easily argue that fireball allows you to throw one super effective ball of fire, so it's a self buff. Or other ridiculousness, ad nauseum.Except that fireball doesn't have a range of "Self."

You keep bringing in examples you want us to be forced to accept as ridiculous if we hold to what is plainly written in the text of the spell and its target line, but you have to actively ignore that the spell's targeting lines say different things in order to make the analogy. In other words, bad analogy: does not support your position.


You need to read things in context in 5e, and you're failing to do that.On the contrary. You're the one trying to treat "target," because it appears in the text box of a spell, as if it means something other than what it would mean in a plain English reading of the text (as given by hacksnake in the quote at the top of this post). That is a very 3e-mindset rules-as-legal-terms way of reading it (and often would be wrong in 3e, as well, unless "target" were clearly spelled out to always refer to the target of the spell when written in the spell's text, regardless of other language which might also utilize the term to refer to something else).

In short: read the spell. Do what it says. Each time "target" comes up, it's clearly referring back to the attack's target. Not the spell's, which is never once referenced. The spell is a buff that can only be cast on you (thus targets you), which makes your next successful weapon attack do additional effects on top of whatever the base effects of your weapon are. That's it. There is literally no other way to parse what is written without being factually, grammatically, and definitionally wrong.

[hacksnake]

The distinction is irrelevant, the additional damage and rider effects in question are the result of the smite spell, and are neither a normal, nor an enduring part of the attack in question. Were we speaking of a change to the weapon or the caster, that might be different, but as is...

I think the distinction is meaningful.

If there's no meaningful distinction then Divine Favor, regardless of what the spell says, is really an AoE spell that continues to accrue targets as you continue attacking because the spell keeps dealing extra damage to additional targets over time because 'the additional damage [is] the result of the spell [not] part of the attack in question'.

Personally, I find that end result to be (1) kind of absurd, (2) in clear contradiction to the rules in the PHB, & (3) in direct opposition to the spell's description. In short - I see no compelling case to support that interpretation so I believe there is an meaningful distinction to be made whether the spell is causing effects or whether the spell makes an attack cause effects.

I find the same end results to be equally distasteful and incorrect for Divine Favor & Smite spells. They both also clearly state that the attacks deal damage etc.


Let's take a look at Divine Favor, and Elemental weapon, both of which have essentially the same effect as your hypothetical spell. Let's see, Divine favor speaks specifically of imbuing the caster with "divine radiance". Elemental weapon is even more clear, a specific nonmagical weapon you touch is altered by the spell.

Divine Favor matches your interpretation of how Smite spells work, with Elemental Weapon being a similar nonsharable variant. But their spell descriptions clearly describe their target as being other than the victim(s) of the caster's attacks. None of the Smite spells do the same. I wonder why that might be?

I agree that we can discard Elemental Weapon entirely because it explicitly targets a specific weapon so it's materially different and therefore irrevalent for the purposes of this discussion.

I also agree that Divine Favor is an excellent parallel and it supports my interpretation for Smites. See above for additional details.

[mgshamster]

I agree that we can discard Elemental Weapon entirely because it explicitly targets a specific weapon so it's materially different and therefore irrevalent for the purposes of this discussion..

Elemental Weapon has a range of touch, and specifically targets a weapon.

If the smite spells targeted a weapon instead of you, they would also be Range: Touch.

[Captbrannigan]

I'm not assuming anything in regards to the statement in question. Whether it is the weapon that causes it, the caster through the weapon, or a separate spell effect delivered via attack, the end result is someone getting blasted in the face with fire magic, or thundering magic, or whatever. That is the spell's purpose and principle effect.

They also cause your weapon to glow and could be used purely for Intimidation purposes, which is pretty thematically appropriate for a Paladin. Stupid use of a spell slot, but people use weak spells all the time.



no, we really don't, too many unresolved issues and not enough of a majority on either side to declare a "win" That combined with the fact that every dev confirmation we've had thus far is negative (even though they have yet to cover all possibilities) makes this far from resolved.

Dev twitter responses are less useful than CustServ responses, being limited by character count. Please don't confuse my use of character count, referring to keyboard entries, for referring to party size.




In order to be effective, Reductio ad absurdum arguments must logically follow from the original statement. Capt's attempt at it did not do so, for the reasons I pointed out.

I think if one were inclined they could make the arguement that smite spells follow the Attack Rolls rule in the Spellcasting chapter, which I think is absurd.


Ultimately, the end purpose of the spell to use energy to effect an opponent. Quibble all you wish about the means of doing so, that is the reason the spell exists.

If we were speaking of a spell at causes some change to either the caster or the weapon, we would expect that change to last for a period of time rather than being single use only. Haste, Divine Favor, and Magic Weapon are all spells that represent this idea.

Since the spell discharges upon a hit, the profile matches exactly what I've been speaking of, a deliverable packet of magic energy.

I really don't see how you would build a spell that works in the way we've been describing except the way Smites are written. It holds a single charge until a hit lands, or concentration is broken, unlike Divine Favor. It can apply to whatever weapon you strike with, unlike Elemental Weapon. You can choose to start channeling a smite in advance, before you have a target in sight or to hit whoever moves into your Sentinel reach first.

*edit* Oh ya, using the suggestion of replacing "target" with "creature" might help.

[Mjolnirbear]

So when you cast a spell, typically you designate a target upon casting, according to the Target section. Range says the target must be within range. A range of self says the target is yourself unless you are the point of origin.

People seem to not want to accept that. Even though "target" in a smite spell is not with the range of the spell (self) they argue it's a valid target. By virtue of the word target. While ignoring the rules about range.

We've been the victims of unfortunate word choices in every edition of D&D. So this is nothing new. This could easily be one.

How about the Target rules then? Typically you designate a target when you cast a spell. Ok. But you don't designate a target when you cast a smite. Ever. At any point. The target is determined by the dice gods.

I cast Searing Smite this round. I attack with my dagger and miss. Cursing, I draw my greatsword and miss again. Fuming, Out of attacks, I drop the greatsword and wait until my next turn.

Next turn I draw my whip. I attack. Dammit I missed again! Amused, my DM lets me kick up a halbard lying nearby, and I attack.

I roll a one. The halbard swings past the orc I was trying to hit and strikes the foot of the cleric on the other side of my enemy. Which discharges Searing Smite.

But wait, the cleric has Magic Initiate and the Shield spell. The halbard misses him! Instead it strikes the door. Which discharges the spell, and bursts into flame.

Tell me: at what point did you, the caster, designate the target of Searing Smite? If I had hit with any of the weapons I tried first, you could say I targeted the orc. But I didn't. You can say I accidentally targeted the cleric. But then he avoided it completely. So I hit the door. Does the spell allow objects as targets? Does it identify what are valid targets and what aren't?

In any event I designated the target for my attacks, not the spell. I have no choice where Searing Smite lands. I try to make sure it hits the orc but I have no control over it except in certain scenarios such as auto-hits.

Unlike Greenflame Blade, I hm not limited in range apparently. My targets must only be hit by an appropriate weapon. Isn't Banishing Smite the one that allows Ranged weapons? I can take a feat and get ridiculous distance.

Point of Origin spells list a range for a reason. If smites are point of origin spells, there is something seriously wrong with the range being decided by accident.

And if they're not, then by default, the target is self. And is valid by RAW for sharing spells with your paladin mount.

Otherwise, show me the rule. Show me the specific beats general rule or the regular rule or any rule that applies.

[Gwendol]

Only, a range of self does not equal target: you. PoO spells clearly target creatures in their AoE.

Shared spells are those where you get to target yourself. I've listed them (from the paladin spell list).

[pwykersotz]

I have come to three conclusions from this thread.

1) I'm going to rule this case-by-case and err on the side of leniency
2) =/= looks silly, we should use !=
3) PoO is a terrible acronym :smalltongue:

[Mjolnirbear]

Only, a range of self does not equal target: you. PoO spells clearly target creatures in their AoE.

Shared spells are those where you get to target yourself. I've listed them (from the paladin spell list).

Only that's not what the rule is. There are two kinds of spells per the rules that have a range of self. One is a point of origin spell, where the range is self followed by a shape and a distance: self (15-foot cone) or self (30-foot line) the other explicitly says a range of self means you are the target.

Page 203: "The target of a spell must be in the spell's range."

"Other spells, such as the Shield spell, affect only you. Such spells have a range of self."

"Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the point of origin must be you. "

A smite spell is like shuffling your feet on pile carpet. It won't discharge until you hit. Until then the static charge is held in you. And it can be discharged accidentally regardless of who you mean to it with it.

If a smite spell were a point of origin, then where is the range? The area of effect? Point of origin spells are *also* all area of effect spells. Is everyone saying you can AoE smite? Because if so, screw sharing with the horse--I'm hunting goblins!



This is not to say that sharing smite spells isn't cheese. It sure feels like cheese. We feel that Find Steed sharing is meant to be only for passive buffs. But doesn't say that. It says only spells where you are the target.

Smite is similar to fire shield. The difference is how it's triggered.


This is also not to say that this is RAI. I've no clue. It feels like passive buffs only is the intention. I'm only arguing for the RAW.

1. The target of the spell must be in the spells range.
2. A spell that targets only you has a range of self, unless it's a point of origin spell.
3. At no point during the casting of a smite spell do you designate a target other than yourself. The spell describes what happens to the target of your attack, but the target of your *spell* is determined at casting.

Firebolt: you determine your target at the casting, and either miss or hit
Charm Person: you designate your target who either resists or is charmed. Or if it's an invalid target it fizzles.
Greenflame Blade: you designate a target within a 5-foot range and roll to attack as part of the casting of your spell. If you hit it suffers the effects of the attack and the spell both. If you miss the spell is wasted--you don't get to switch targets and try again.

[DivisibleByZero]

Only that's not what the rule is. There are two kinds of spells per the rules that have a range of self. One is a point of origin spell, where the range is self followed by a shape and a distance: self (15-foot cone) or self (30-foot line) the other explicitly says a range of self means you are the target.

You guys keep saying this again and again, but the fact is that the rules don't actually say what you're claiming they do.
Your are correct that the rules say that a range of Self means one of two things.
You are incorrect when you claim that a point of origin spell has a range of "self followed by a shape and distance."
The fact is that the rules don't say that PoO spells are followed by a shape and distance. That's just what you guys are extrapolating from it, but it doesn't actually say that.
It simply says that it is either A or B, with nothing else but examples.
There is nothing preventing a PoO spell from not having a shape and size listed, just like Lightning Arrow does not.


Point of origin spells are *also* all area of effect spells.
Everyone keeps saying this as well. Also incorrect. Again, this is just extrapolation and not actually what the text says.

[Mjolnirbear]

Your are correct that the rules say that a range of Self means one of two things.
You are incorrect when you claim that a point of origin spell has a range of "self followed by a shape and distance."
The fact is that the rules don't say that PoO spells are followed by a shape and distance. That's just what you guys are extrapolating from it, but it doesn't actually say that.
It simply says that it is either A or B, with nothing else but examples.

What an excellent point. Let's go over the rules for points of origin shall we? That would be in the area of effect section. That section describes lines, cones, cubes, spheres and cylinders. Which point of origin does a smite qualify as again?

Where else does it say point of origin? Not in the smite spells. No example save an area of effect spell is ever given for a point of origin. All area of effect spells describe a shape and distance, from Thunderwave to Fireball to Aura of Vitality, Flame Strike, Cone of Cold and Lightning. No smite spell has any wording that even approximates this. There are no shapes mentioned nor any distance that applies.

Can you tell me any spell or rule or example that even hints that a point of origin spell is anything other than an AoE spell? Without extrapolation?

[mgshamster]

What an excellent point. Let's go over the rules for points of origin shall we? That would be in the area of effect section. That section describes lines, cones, cubes, spheres and cylinders. Which point of origin does a smite qualify as again?

Where else does it say point of origin? Not in the smite spells. No example save an area of effect spell is ever given for a point of origin. All area of effect spells describe a shape and distance, from Thunderwave to Fireball to Aura of Vitality, Flame Strike, Cone of Cold and Lightning. No smite spell has any wording that even approximates this. There are no shapes mentioned nor any distance that applies.

Can you tell me any spell or rule or example that even hints that a point of origin spell is anything other than an AoE spell? Without extrapolation?

His counter argument will be comprised of:

1) Range doesn't equal target, so you can't use Range: Self to justify that you're the target.
2) You are doing damage to someone else, so they're "obviously" the target of the spell.
2) Because you're targeting someone else and it's a Range: Self spell, then it must be AoE, and therefore the Range: Self means it's a point of origin reference.
4) No rules say that this isn't the case, therefore it is.

Each of these points have been refuted time and time again, and he keeps making the same claims back again as if it proves him right over any refutation.

[Daishain]

Point of origin spells are *also* all area of effect spells.Are they? Granted, the specific examples for point of origin spells in the rules were AOEs, but the vast majority of such spells are indeed AOEs (making those examples a reasonable pick), and I haven't seen anything that indicates such is the only possibility. Since being the target of your own smite makes jack all sense to me for reasons people keep ignoring, the simplest ruling I can think of is to categorize them as a PoO with a single affected target rather than an AOE.

Damn but I wish they'd used a better editor, this discussion would never even have begun if they'd just used clear syntax from the beginning. That or at least been diligent in saying something when debates like this pop up.


His counter argument will be comprised of:

1) Range doesn't equal target, so you can't use Range: Self to justify that you're the target.
2) You are doing damage to someone else, so they're "obviously" the target of the spell.
2) Because you're targeting someone else and it's a Range: Self spell, then it must be AoE, and therefore the Range: Self means it's a point of origin reference.
4) No rules say that this isn't the case, therefore it is.

Each of these points have been refuted time and time again, and he keeps making the same claims back again as if it proves him right over any refutation.
1) has been PROVEN, whether or not the statement is relevant depends on other details.
2) as worded here, false, but if that's your impression of the arguments you need to read them again.
3) has someone claimed smites to be an AOE? point of origin yes, AoE no, at least so far as I've seen.
4) Be honest with yourself, this has been part of both side's argument. The rules fail to specify, and we have each chosen to fill in the gaps with assumptions.


They also cause your weapon to glow and could be used purely for Intimidation purposes, which is pretty thematically appropriate for a Paladin. Stupid use of a spell slot, but people use weak spells all the time.and Firebolt can be used as a signal flare, so what? We're talking about what the spell actually does, not incidental usage.


Dev twitter responses are less useful than CustServ responses, being limited by character count. Please don't confuse my use of character count, referring to keyboard entries, for referring to party size.I'm inclined to agree, but my point was that every time a questionable use of the shared spells feature like this one has actually been answered by a dev, the people holding your position on the topic were denied. Not a favorable trend.


I really don't see how you would build a spell that works in the way we've been describing except the way Smites are written. It holds a single charge until a hit lands, or concentration is broken, unlike Divine Favor. It can apply to whatever weapon you strike with, unlike Elemental Weapon. You can choose to start channeling a smite in advance, before you have a target in sight or to hit whoever moves into your Sentinel reach first.Simple enough, use clearer language. If designing a self buff that discharges upon a single use, I'd speak of the spell augmenting the subject in some way (a la the description used by Divine Favor.) If designing a spell that doesn't take effect until one's glaive is deep in the enemy's shoulder, I'd speak of charging the weapon in the midst of an attack.

Better yet would have been to clearly define the target and/or the type of spell in a manner that is not subject to interpretation. We wouldn't need to bring this up if the spell (for example) read "Searing Smite: personal buff" or "Searing Smite: delayed attack"

[Zalabim]

So a paladin hits with searing smite (which triggers only on hitting a creature, not a door unless it's a mimic door). What do you target with dispel magic to dispel the fire? The paladin or the creature on fire or the fire? Any?

Divine Favor is kinda like a smite spell, except it doesn't use the word target. So it's not like a smite spell, mechanically. As already mentioned, the smite spells could use creature instead of target to clarify that the creature that's hit and suffers the spell's effects is not the target of the spell. It would be a lot clearer than the wording for Fireball that says creatures make saves and the targets take damage, where the target is technically a point of origin. You also don't get to totally control who's targeted by a fireball, when unseen walls and creatures are lurking about.

Anyway, a dev answer on lightning arrow would be conclusive, since it has the same kind of wording as the smite spells. I won't dredge twitter, and can't use sageadvice from here, to find it.

There's a wide variety of spells that target space (or a PoO) and only effect one creature at a time, since they create effects on the battlefield like Bigby's Hand and Mordenkainen's Sword.

[hacksnake]

So a paladin hits with searing smite (which triggers only on hitting a creature, not a door unless it's a mimic door). What do you target with dispel magic to dispel the fire? The paladin or the creature on fire or the fire? Any?
The ignite effect duration is linked to the spell duration. I'd say if you wanted to remove it via dispel magic you'd target the magical effect on the paladin based on what I believe is the most reasonable interpretation of the spell that we have to date.


Divine Favor is kinda like a smite spell, except it doesn't use the word target. So it's not like a smite spell, mechanically. As already mentioned, the smite spells could use creature instead of target to clarify that the creature that's hit and suffers the spell's effects is not the target of the spell. It would be a lot clearer than the wording for Fireball that says creatures make saves and the targets take damage, where the target is technically a point of origin. You also don't get to totally control who's targeted by a fireball, when unseen walls and creatures are lurking about.

I think they are close enough mechanically and it's reasonable to read the word 'target' as I and others have described many times in this thread. It is consistent with other spells/rules and it's consistent with how English is used. It sucks that they word so many things so poorly. Good example with Fireball (taking your word for it since I already looked up like 5 spells for this post...).


Anyway, a dev answer on lightning arrow would be conclusive, since it has the same kind of wording as the smite spells. I won't dredge twitter, and can't use sageadvice from here, to find it.

I think you're being careless in your reading. Lightning Arrow transmutes the weapon into lightning and overrides the "Making an Attack" general rules in the combat section with specific rules text. Mechanically this is very different from how smite spells are worded.


There's a wide variety of spells that target space (or a PoO) and only effect one creature at a time, since they create effects on the battlefield like Bigby's Hand and Mordenkainen's Sword.

I think it's a mistake to conflate targeting an unoccupied space with targeting a point of origin. Point of origin is a specific concept relating to area of effect spells. They are separable. Compare the wording on your example spells with Darkness: "Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range" etc. Point of origin spells should always mention the point unless a general rule makes it obvious where it is (i.e. - in the case of range: self).

[hacksnake]

Are they? Granted, the specific examples for point of origin spells in the rules were AOEs, but the vast majority of such spells are indeed AOEs (making those examples a reasonable pick), and I haven't seen anything that indicates such is the only possibility.

I think Mjolnirbear already did a great job breaking it down a few times.

I think mostly the main points are roughly:

PHB 202: "Range: Self" either affects only you or they are AOE that originate from you. Must be one of these two options.
PHB 274 & others: smite spells are Range: Self and do not mention any AoE.
Therefore: smite spells are not AoE.
Therefore: smite spells must affect only the caster (it's the only other option available per PHB 202).


If this is correct then smite targets only the caster. The most reasonable and simple explanation for how that could work is it's a self-buff that lets you do a cool melee weapon attack. That explanation also happens to align cleanly with how the spell is written. It also aligns cleanly with how Divine Favor works. It all seems like a reasonable bet for being the correct answer given the currently available information.

If you want to disagree with that you need to provide some kind of clear support from the rules for your interpretation.

There is no rules support, that I can find, for a "Range: Self" spell that is not an area of effect spell that is also a point of origin spell that doesn't target the caster. If you believe that exists then you need to provide some kind of clear support from the rules for it. Furthermore you then need to demonstrate that smite spells are actually those sorts of spells.


Since being the target of your own smite makes jack all sense to me for reasons people keep ignoring, the simplest ruling I can think of is to categorize them as a PoO with a single affected target rather than an AOE.

You may want to consider that you keep ignoring the reasons it could make sense.

I don't think that we aren't ignoring that it doesn't make sense to you. It's that the rules don't seem to support what you're saying and you haven't provided a really clear explanation for why they do. "It doesn't make sense to me" is not a compelling reason to conclude "the rules don't work that way."

EDIT:
Some more bits:

3) has someone claimed smites to be an AOE? point of origin yes, AoE no, at least so far as I've seen.
That would be the easiest way to establish that there is a point of origin. Earlier in the thread I believe someone was briefly trying to claim that, yes.


4) Be honest with yourself, this has been part of both side's argument. The rules fail to specify, and we have each chosen to fill in the gaps with assumptions.
I care quite a lot what the rules say and I think they best support the opinion that I currently hold. I tried to explain why again in this post. I'll switch my opinion as soon as an option that is better supported by the rules comes along.

[Captbrannigan]

Are they? Granted, the specific examples for point of origin spells in the rules were AOEs, but the vast majority of such spells are indeed AOEs (making those examples a reasonable pick), and I haven't seen anything that indicates such is the only possibility. Since being the target of your own smite makes jack all sense to me for reasons people keep ignoring, the simplest ruling I can think of is to categorize them as a PoO with a single affected target rather than an AOE.

Gotcha, all humans being terrestrial is purely coincidental and there could totally be humans elsewhere in the universe. All this time I thought Sci Fi was just lazy by putting people everywhere...





Damn but I wish they'd used a better editor, this discussion would never even have begun if they'd just used clear syntax from the beginning. That or at least been diligent in saying something when debates like this pop up.


1) has been PROVEN, whether or not the statement is relevant depends on other details.

The party Wizard uses a divination to determine the BBEG is right on the other side of this door. The Paladin announces she wants to start concentrating on Searing Smite. Who is her target, as she lacks LoS to the BBEG or his minions?



2) as worded here, false, but if that's your impression of the arguments you need to read them again.
3) has someone claimed smites to be an AOE? point of origin yes, AoE no, at least so far as I've seen.

Le sigh. Is this really where you're going with this? So where do we get this term, Point of Origin? Oh, its right under this big, bold, underlined heading of Area of Effects. Specifically, this is how the term is defined: "Every area of effect spell has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts." But clearly there must be another class of spells that have a point of origin, to which only smites belong.



4) Be honest with yourself, this has been part of both side's argument. The rules fail to specify, and we have each chosen to fill in the gaps with assumptions.

and Firebolt can be used as a signal flare, so what? We're talking about what the spell actually does, not incidental usage.

No, actually it can't as you have to have a valid target to fire at. Dancing Lights could, which seems to be a primary usage rather than "incidental."


I'm inclined to agree, but my point was that every time a questionable use of the shared spells feature like this one has actually been answered by a dev, the people holding your position on the topic were denied. Not a favorable trend.

He's also made it clear that a trained warhorse is equally as useful in combat as a store bought hag, so again I don't really care if he continues to rule "against" us.

*edit* I should be more clear. I don't have a Twitter account and haven't read any developer tweets except those quoted on this site. The character limit especially makes me wary of both the answer and that the question was worded properly. Furthermore, they seemed like half assed lazy answers that cited wrong pages and failed to read the passages in question. I would need to re-read them, but I also don't believe they were rulings "against" the reading I'm using.



Simple enough, use clearer language. If designing a self buff that discharges upon a single use, I'd speak of the spell augmenting the subject in some way (a la the description used by Divine Favor.) If designing a spell that doesn't take effect until one's glaive is deep in the enemy's shoulder, I'd speak of charging the weapon in the midst of an attack.

The thing is that smite is designed as something in between those, a self buff that discharges upon a single hit and who's "primary" effects don't take effect until after your weapon has hit. I agree with other posters that the only clearer way of writing the spells is to replace "the target" with "the creature struck by your (melee) weapon attack." It may be clearer, but it's ridiculously more cumbersome and text heavy. If I were editing the book and needed to trim some fat, I might think "target" was clearly the target of the weapon attack.




Better yet would have been to clearly define the target and/or the type of spell in a manner that is not subject to interpretation. We wouldn't need to bring this up if the spell (for example) read "Searing Smite: personal buff" or "Searing Smite: delayed attack"
And if Illithids were listed as appropriate creatures for Find Familiar they'd be everyone's choice, who cares? We're trying to parse what we actually have not some alternate universe version where the designers put real effort in.

[Gwendol]

Right. Every AoE spell has a point of origin. Now, does that mean all spells with a point of origin has an AoE?

[hacksnake]

Right. Every AoE spell has a point of origin. Now, does that mean all spells with a point of origin has an AoE?

The only cases mentioned in the PHB assert that areas of effect and points of origin spells are the same set. If you think they aren't you need to substantiate the claim. The burden of proof is on you; not me.

The way the rules are written is they explain what can be they don't explain everything that can't be. Omission mentioning non-AoE PoO spells is the way these rules would convey that it doesn't happen - they never mention that it can or does happen.

You're asking me to prove a negative. That's unreasonable.

EDIT: couple words.

[Captbrannigan]

Right. Every AoE spell has a point of origin. Now, does that mean all spells with a point of origin has an AoE?

We've done this before. Yes, you understand basic logic. Congrats.

The point remains that Point of Origin is a game term that applies to Area of Effects, and while it could logically be used in other circumstances, IT IS NOT. Quote a passage using Point of Origin that does not refer to an Area of Effect and I will concede.

In the absence of a specific occurrence to override the general rule, only AoEs have PoOs.

[Zalabim]

Searing Smite
(The next time you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack during the spell's duration)1, (your weapon flares with white-hot intensity)2, and (the attack deals an extra 1d6 fire damage to the target and causes the target to ignite in flames)3. (At the start of each of its turns until the spell ends, the target must make a Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, it takes 1d6 fire damage. On a successful save, the spell ends. If the target or a creature within 5 feet of it uses an action to put out the flames, or if some other effect douses the flames (such as the target being submerged in water), the spell ends.)4

Lightning Arrow
(The next time you make a ranged weapon attack during the spell's duration)1, (the weapon's ammunition, or the weapon itself if it's a thrown weapon, transforms into a bolt of lightning)2. Make the attack roll as normal. (The target takes 4d8 lightning damage on a hit, or half as much damage on a miss, instead of the weapon's normal damage.)3
(Whether you hit or miss, each creature within 10 feet of the target must make a Dexterity saving throw. Each of these creatures takes 2d8 lightning damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.)4
(The piece of ammunition or weapon then returns to its normal form.)5

1 Similar trigger phrasing, though one is making the attack (step 1) and one is hitting with the attack (step 3).
2 Fluff describing the spell.
3 The effect of the attack on the target. Lightning Arrow explicitly makes the attack roll as normal (step 2), and changes the result (step 3).
4 Effects involving saving throws. Searing Smite's is a primary effect. Lightning Arrow puts it down on the next paragraph as a secondary effect. I note that the creatures in the vicinity of lightning arrow are never called targets.
5 It gets a whole line to say this. I guess the white-hot intensity lasts the whole duration of the spell.

Both spells are Range: Self and only have an effect after an attack by the caster and only effect the target of that attack. They differ in that lightning arrow triggers on targeting the attack and smites trigger on hitting with the attack.

Edit: For fun A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

Creatures make saves. Targets take damage. Obviously, the intention is that Fireball also targets the creatures. Of course, Thunderwave is clear because it never says targets, always creatures, but RAI say that targets the creatures too.

Bonus comparison: Hail of Thorns.
(The next time you hit a creature with a ranged weapon attack before the spell ends)A, (this spell creates a rain of thorns that sprouts from your ranged weapon or ammunition)B. (In addition to the normal effect of the attack, the target of the attack and each creature within 5 feet of it)C (must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 1d10 piercing damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.)D

A Same trigger.
B More fluff.
C The creatures effected.
D The effect.

It's just like a smite, except it doesn't throw the word target all over the place.