Sculpt Spells, a class feature for Evocation Wizards, says the following:

###Sculpt Spells

Beginning at 2nd level, you can create pockets of relative safety within the effects of your evocation spells. When you cast an evocation spell that affects other creatures that you can see, you can choose a number of them equal to 1 + the spell’s level. The chosen creatures automatically succeed on their saving throws against the spell, and they take no damage if they would normally take half damage on a successful save. (SRD, p. 54)

So, you protect your chosen allies from your evocation spells, by letting them:

1. Automatically succeed on saving throws.
2. Take no damage, if they would normally take half damage on a successful save.

This protection feels fairly comprehensive, to the extent that in games I think we've accidentally created a houserule, lapsing into treating this rule in practice as if it actually said:

When you cast an evocation spell that affects other creatures that you can see, you can choose a number of them equal to 1 + the spell’s level. The chosen creatures are entirely unaffected by the spell.

This seems, in principle like a massive oversimplification, but I've struggled in practice to articulate what problems it might cause or think of any situations in which the literal RAW and our accidental interpretation of it would not produce exactly the same result.

So, what affect would allow this houserule to persist have on my game? Does using the correct wording add any significance that I have missed?

Sculpt Spells, a class feature for Evocation Wizards, says the following:

###Sculpt Spells

Beginning at 2nd level, you can create pockets of relative safety within the effects of your evocation spells. When you cast an evocation spell that affects other creatures that you can see, you can choose a number of them equal to 1 + the spell’s level. The chosen creatures automatically succeed on their saving throws against the spell, and they take no damage if they would normally take half damage on a successful save. (SRD, p. 54)

So, you protect your chosen allies from your evocation spells, by letting them:

1. Automatically succeed on saving throws.
2. Take no damage, if they would normally take half damage on a successful save.

This protection feels fairly comprehensive, to the extent that in games I think we've accidentally created a houserule, lapsing into treating this rule in practice as if it actually said:

When you cast an evocation spell that affects other creatures that you can see, you can choose a number of them equal to 1 + the spell’s level. The chosen creatures are entirely unaffected by the spell.

This seems, in principle like a massive oversimplification, but I've struggled in practice to articulate what problems it might cause or think of any situations in which the literal RAW and our accidental interpretation of it would not produce exactly the same result.

So, what affect would allowing this houserule to persist have on my game? Does using the correct wording add any significance that I have missed?

Sculpt Spells, a class feature for Evocation Wizards, says the following:

###Sculpt Spells

Beginning at 2nd level, you can create pockets of relative safety within the effects of your evocation spells. When you cast an evocation spell that affects other creatures that you can see, you can choose a number of them equal to 1 + the spell’s level. The chosen creatures automatically succeed on their saving throws against the spell, and they take no damage if they would normally take half damage on a successful save. (SRD, p. 54)

So, you protect your chosen allies from your evocation spells, by letting them:

1. Automatically succeed on saving throws.
2. Take no damage, if they would normally take half damage on a successful save.

This protection feels fairly comprehensive, to the extent that in games I've run we've lapsed into treating this rule in practice as if it actually said:

When you cast an evocation spell that affects other creatures that you can see, you can choose a number of them equal to 1 + the spell’s level. The chosen creatures are entirely unaffected by the spell.

This seems like a massive oversimplification, but I can't think of any exceptions which would mean that the literal RAW and our interpretation of it did not produce exactly the same result.

So, have we been playing this wrong? Are there any evocation spells from which an ally would still suffer even minor negative effects despite being protected by Sculpt Spells? Does the correct wording add any significance that I have missed?

Sculpt Spells, a class feature for Evocation Wizards, says the following:

###Sculpt Spells

Beginning at 2nd level, you can create pockets of relative safety within the effects of your evocation spells. When you cast an evocation spell that affects other creatures that you can see, you can choose a number of them equal to 1 + the spell’s level. The chosen creatures automatically succeed on their saving throws against the spell, and they take no damage if they would normally take half damage on a successful save. (SRD, p. 54)

So, you protect your chosen allies from your evocation spells, by letting them:

1. Automatically succeed on saving throws.
2. Take no damage, if they would normally take half damage on a successful save.

This protection feels fairly comprehensive, to the extent that in games I think we've accidentally created a houserule, lapsing into treating this rule in practice as if it actually said:

When you cast an evocation spell that affects other creatures that you can see, you can choose a number of them equal to 1 + the spell’s level. The chosen creatures are entirely unaffected by the spell.

This seems, in principle like a massive oversimplification, but I've struggled in practice to articulate what problems it might cause or think of any situations in which the literal RAW and our accidental interpretation of it would not produce exactly the same result.

So, what affect would allow this houserule to persist have on my game? Does using the correct wording add any significance that I have missed?