-1
\$\begingroup\$

According to Jeremy Crawford the "Dragon's Breath" spell also targets the creatures hit by the exhalation, and Green-Flame Blade targets two creatures.

My understanding is that according to JC, any creature "affected" by a spell is considered "targeted" by it.

Suppose I subscribe to JC's ruling.

I cast a conjure spell (say, Conjure Animals). If my summoned creature attacks an enemy, is that enemy considered a "target" of the conjure spell?

\$\endgroup\$

closed as primarily opinion-based by NautArch, Szega, 40355 says Reinstate Monica, V2Blast, Mark Wells May 3 at 4:12

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ This might be better phrased as 'if you subscribe to JC's ruling, are enemies attacked by conjured creatures considered targets of the spell', because the only real answer to this is no, but JC's tweet is probably a good example of why they are no longer official. \$\endgroup\$ – SeriousBri May 1 at 10:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ Good point. I thought JC's ruling was well accepted, but it is clear it is not. \$\endgroup\$ – Merudo May 1 at 15:12
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I think the JC-based question is unanswerable since we cannot know JC's ruling on one thing based on something else. \$\endgroup\$ – kviiri May 2 at 5:29
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Might just be easier to ask "are characters attacked by conjured creatures considered targets of the conjuration spell?" and state that you're interested in the rationale. Leave the JC references in a background or references section of the question body. \$\endgroup\$ – GcL May 2 at 13:46
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Merudo Unless he's explicitly stated it, any generalization is just guesswork. \$\endgroup\$ – kviiri May 3 at 7:44
3
\$\begingroup\$

No, the conjured creature was the target of the spell, as the spell creates the creature. Any creature attacked by a conjured creature doesn't just become the target of the spell that conjured the creature, because they aren't being directly affected by the spell. Being affected by a spell means that if, say, color spray was cast, and the 15 ft. cone included 2 creatures.

Those 2 creatures are considered targets, because they are directly influenced. After that, anything they interact with in any way doesn't then also become targets of color spray. If a spell creates, conjures, or summons something, unless the spell says otherwise, anything that that object, character, or creature interacts with in any way does not become the target, as the spell is simply creating that thing, not targeting anything that that thing interacts with. That's just not how spells work.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Why does the spell Dragon's Breath targets the creatures hit by the breath, but Conjure Animals doesn't target the creatures hit by the conjured beasts? \$\endgroup\$ – Merudo May 1 at 10:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ because conjured beast's target is the conjured creature. Anything it interacts with isn't directly influenced by the spell. I just finished editing to make the answer a bit better, also dragon breath isn't a spell btw \$\endgroup\$ – Smart_TJ May 1 at 10:20
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Smart_TJ It's a new spell in Xanthar's Guide to Everything. \$\endgroup\$ – Axoren May 1 at 10:22
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ @Merudo as has been stated on your other question, JC's tweets aren't official and thus aren't hard-set rules. Assuming everything based on that one linked tweet are the rules and the way everything should be isn't likely to end well. \$\endgroup\$ – Purple Monkey May 1 at 10:24
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ As much as I want to agree with this answer, you should really add some sources and quotes to back some of this up. And a small discussion on JCs tweets being unofficial and sometimes wrong wouldn't be amiss here either I think. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose May 1 at 12:54
-2
\$\begingroup\$

No. Summoning spells behave differently than other spells.

If we subscribe to Jeremy Crawford's ruling, we need to take into account this tweet:

A rakshasa's Limited Magic Immunity offers no protection against a summoned creature. The creature's presence is a spell effect. The creature itself is not a spell effect.

The conjured creature itself is not a spell effect, and therefore the attacks of the conjured creature are not spell effects either.

As a result, the spell does not target the enemies attacked by the summoned creature.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Doesn't this directly oppose the tweet you presented in the question? Which tweet takes priority? \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch May 3 at 19:50

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.