Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 8693229" data-attributes="member: 5889">The issue isn't that phrase, that phrase is clear. The problem is the notion of targets.If you read the combat section, the term "targets" is only used in reference to when a spell is cast. The targeting section for area effect notes that you target a "point in space". And if we consult the meteor swarm spell, the section that says "target" clearly defines points in space, not creatures. So if we are going on legal definition based on the phrase above, the meaning is "clear", that I can use meteor swarm, because I am not targeting any "creature", again....I target a point in space.Where the murkiness comes in is this notion of "spell targets". The spell fireball (the most iconic of area damage damage) spells notes the concept that the fireball IS targetting creatures. We also have some passages from the DMG that once again note how many targets the area spell itself can have.So we have seen the word target being used in subtlety two different ways.... I can target the spell itself, but then the spell can have targets. So going back to hopelessness, it does refer to the caster being unable to target. Ok....so does that also include the spell targeting a creature? Is the idea of a person targeting a spell, and a spell targeting someone....actually two different things, or is it just the same thing but poorly worded and defined?That is where all the murkiness comes in. Its been an interesting discussion because it just showcases how people are different. This has never come up in my games before, to me the wording was "obviously" clear about targets because of the targeting section... yet the second others brought up their own interpretation, I can see why they would think so. It should be noted that however you decide to interpret hopelessness in your game, you should apply the same ruling to the charmed condition, which uses very similar language.</blockquote>

Verification