Under targeting section of spell "If you are in the area effect of a spell you cast, you CAN target yourself." so does that mean spells such as sleep, fireball, and others don't hurt yourself as the caster by default.
Or is this just for non-harmful spells?
This is for spells where you choose targets. You don't choose the targets of a fireball, it just automatically hits everybody in the area. Bless, on the other hand, does target specific creatures within a certain area, and so you can target yourself in addition to other creatures.
JRutterbush wrote:
I'm definitely seeing ambiguity here. The wording suggests that if a spellcaster is in an area of effect of a spell they cast, they can target themselves... that doesn't mean they have to target themselves, it just means it's an option.
So now let's consider fireball:
"each creature in a 20-ft radius sphere... A target takes 8d6 fire damage..."
Let's say you're a spellcaster and you cast the spell centered on yourself (or consider the case of a sorcerer's wild surge fireball):
The spellcaster is in the area of affect of a spell they cast. Since they are in the area, they can target themselves. Since the wording isn't they DO target themselves, can the caster just say "I'm not a target"?
Some might argue: but you don't select targets. Well, that's true. But consider that if you did choose targets, the spell would contain phrasing such as "X creatures of your choice" or "X targets of your choice" like in the descriptions of Slow and Chain Lightning, which are AE spells that hit selected targets... and those spells are governed by the first rule of Targeting Yourself:
"If a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can target yourself, unless the creature must be hostile or specifically a creature other than you."
Note the word "can" in the sentence. The caster has the option of selecting themselves or they can select a different target if they want. It's the player's decision.
Does that mean "If you are in the area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself" also means it's the player's decision? It would explain why features like Sculpt Spell and Careful Spell don't mention the caster being one of the options... perhaps the caster can exclude themselves without using those features.
I've tweeted Jeremy Crawford and Mike Mearls and never received a response.
Bloodscythe wrote:
I can see the ambiguity, and the support for alternate perspectives. Here's hoping we get an official response!
Unless they change the wording of Sculpt Spell and Careful Spell, they currently only allow you to exclude "other creatures that you can see." Which is odd, on two fronts. One, you should be able to exclude yourself. Two, you should be able to exclude objects. If I Sculpt Spell a Fireball, and want it to blow up the bad guys, but NOT blow up the macguffin they're standing next to, why can I not do that?
A better (more useful and sane) version of Sculpt Spell would say "any creature or object that you can see (you can always see yourself, and you are a creature!)" If they want to fix Careful Spell for balance, make it not applicable to Wild Magic Surges, but applicable to spells you cast using your spell slots.
RAW seems to exclude the possibility of using Sculpt Spell or Careful Spell on yourself, but does not preclude you from using Careful Spell for Wild Magic Surges, since you can apply metamagic to ANY SPELL THAT YOU CAST, and a lot of the surges state "you cast x spell", which means using your spell DC.
JRutterbush wrote:
"Can" doesn't only mean "may as a matter of permission," it also means "it is possible to do." As in, "is it possible to target myself, say, by placing an AoE over my space?" "Yes, you can do that." Not the only way to read that sentence, but it maintains consistency with spells such as Fireball.
Noctaem wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Specific beats general. There's no ambiguity to me.
General = Targeting Yourself p.204 PHB, "If you are in the area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself." This is a general rule applied to spells.
Specific = Fireball, p.241-242 PHB "Each creature in a 20-foot radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw..." This is the specific rule applied to this spell.
It doesn't matter how you interpret "you can target yourself," because the specific description of fireball says if you are in the area, you must make a saving throw.
Found one, Holy Aura.
Divine light washes out from you and coalesces in a soft radience in a 30-foot radius around you. Creatures of your choice in that radius when you cast this spell....
These rules are written in basic english. The problem seems to come when people decide to start pulling specific words out of sentences to argue that they say things they do not. I've already explained all of this. The more people look, the more they will find examples of what I'm talking about:
Nevvur wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
Bait-hammer wrote:
I don't know that I would allow a caster to opt out of a fireball's area of effect, myself.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
With fireball, the phrase "you can target yourself" simply means that the origin point can be within 20 feet of the caster, which puts him in the radius and makes him a target.
jonathonhawke wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
IMO, and the way I see it:
It was probably just supposed to circumvent a potential stickler where someone read, "the caster can target three creatures in the area," and for whatever reason thinks it to mean the caster shouldn't be able to include himself.
But as popular as pedantry is, I don't think there's any way the devs can write certain things that would manage to stop chronic parsers and their need to overanalyze. 
Orethalion wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
I feel like we've already done this whole dance with Bloodscythe about how specific vs general works in multiple other threads about various subjects. This isn't really complicated to understand when it has been explained multiple times...
If we want to play semantics: The rule in queston never says you have the ability to exclude yourself as a target, so yes you get hit by your own fireball.
Otherwise, this is a silly argument. Anyone with a brain realizes that if you are in the AoE of fireball you get burned, unless you are able to apply Sculpt Spell or another similiar ability to the spell. No general rule allows you to not target yourself with a spell such as this, but the rule in question does clarify that you can choose yourself as a target if you have the choice (fireball leaves you no choice).
The specific rule of the 8d6 damage from fireball underwater is still applied if the spell is cast underwater. Then the specific damage is applied according to the result of the Dex saving throw.
Then the general rule for underwater combat is applied i.e. fire resistance halves damage done. The general rule of combat underwater does not override or supercede the specific rule of the fireball spell. Specific always beats general.
Baphogoat wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Uh, no... Targeting Yourself will always be the general. The spell description will always be the specific. Then some other effects invoke specific vs. specific, and one of those specifics will override the other, as in the specific of Sculpt overriding the specific of a spell description with an area effect.
Nevvur wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
This is so pathetic. I can't believe Bloodscythe has this complex about not going to read the Specific vs General section for the rules and admitting he might have misunderstood something. Stop arguing with bad form and go learn how specific vs general works. We've given you the damn page number!
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
If you don't manage to get through that thick skull of his Aaron I don't know what will.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
lol Aaron just re-iterated what we've been telling you all along. You just finally decided to read the posts being presented to you or read the PHB pages listed and finally admitted you were incorrect. Furthermore Aaron explained WHY it shouldn't read "you target yourself". There is no ambiguity here, you just invented it and then refused to read the PHB. The question has also been already answered. We didn't have to wait for you to realize that fact to get it.... Ridiculous.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Delayed Blast Fireball states: "Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes fire damage equal to the total accumulated damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."
jonathonhawke wrote:
Okay, for the sake of assumption, we conclude that AoEs affect the caster, if they specify all targets in the area.
Now, explain thematically, why the ability to sculpt magic using Sculpt Magic or Careful Spell should not be able to include the caster, even though it can include everyone else that you choose to include. I don't care about game balance. Give one reason why you can do the extremely difficult task of excluding other people that you can see merely by sight (sculpt spell) or magical intuition (careful spell), but you can't exclude yourself, who you always know where you are, you shape the weave of magic right around yourself, and you have specifically trained in how to exclude areas from the effect of your magic.
So, we can use our incomprehensible mental powers to exclude moving, twirling, fighting, idiotic teammates from our giant ball of fire, but we can't exclude ourselves, who are standing still and concentrating on the effect, knowing exactly where it will occur, how, and the area of its effect.
Because the rules say we can't, or because we have a single bit of fluff to support such an idea? So, you can't weave magic to exclude yourself, but you can make a dex throw to dodge half of the damage of the fireball that you just dropped on yourself and are still concentrating on, because magic takes all of your concentration to cast.
Pants on head retarded, here we go.
And I'm not seeing the overpowering of any spell that allows you to take a school of magic or a metamagic pick to avoid the effect of something if you drop it on yourself. Sculpt Spell only works with evocation, and Careful Spell only gives you an automatic saving throw success, and a lot of the magic out there that you can cast that's AoE still has some sort of effect on success. And if you're willing to use a sorcerer point on Careful Spell, then it's use of resources, which should give you such an ability.
jonathonhawke wrote:
Talreign, I agree with your assessment of Sculp/Careful Spell. I don't believe there is a good reason why the caster cannot include himself using those features. Fortunately, the only people who have to suffer are the ones with DMs unwilling or unable (AL) to houserule sensibily.
Or hope they change the language in the errata.
Even though it's been answered (quite heavily) and seems resolved, I still want to post my opinion from having looked up various rules while reading the thread. 
PHB page 204 under Targets states: "A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below)." With Targeting Yourself the text reads: "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." Areas of Effect goes over the different, typical shapes and explains how you determine whether a creature (or object) is included in the spells area of effect. With cones, cubes, and lines, the originating point may or may not be included in the area of effect, determined by the spellcaster. Cylinders and spheres always include the point of origin within their area of effect, even if the spellcaster would prefer otherwise.
Areas of effect generally extend outwards in a straight line from the point of origin, and don't cover areas behind cover (such as walls). Fireball specifically states: "The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried." This is a specific rule, that of going around corners, that overrides the general rule, that of area of effects not including spaces without a straight line from the point of origin. Darkness also has this effect, stating: "The darkness spreads around corners."
Fireball is worded strangely as it first talks about creatures within its area of effect then talking about targets, however it can be quickly seen as an error or irrelevent. Yes, a target takes full damage on a failed save or half that on a successful save, but those making a save happen to be each creature in its area of effect, so clearly the creatures in the area of effect and the targets are one and the same.
An evoker's Scult Spells feature is also an example of a specific rule overriding a general rule, without conflicting with spells like fireball. It states: "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." Fireball gives no specific rulings on affecting saving throws, so there's no conflict with scult spells giving an automatic success, nor does fireball give any specifics that would conflict with scult spells regarding taking half damage on a successful save which means targets protected from fireball via sculpt spells take no damage from it. I did see someone wonder about scultping spells to exclude objects from the area of effect, however objects never take saving throws so granting them an automatic success means nothing, as no save is allowed in the first place.
Okay, I think that's all. 
Talreign wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Perhaps you actually have to be able to SEE them. You can't really see yourself at the same time as you are looking at targets you can see. It's not much a a reason, but it is a reason that it works the way it does thematically.
Talreign wrote:
Talreign wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Talreign wrote:
Talreign wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Oriet wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Also, as it stands, you can use Careful Spell on Wild Magic Surges when the table specifically says "you cast x", but you can't use Careful Spell and apply it to yourself.
Being able to Careful Spell Wild Magic Surges seems vastly more overpowered than Careful Spelling your spells to affect yourself.
Noctaem wrote:
Oriet wrote:
Oriet wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Oriet wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
While debating the mechanics is the norm around here, I find it amusing how unlikely it is for a spellcaster to ever include himself in his own damaging area effect spell in the first place. This is a 100+ post thread about an extreme edge case.
"Back in the day..." when you were limited to casting exactly the spells you prepared, it occured more frequently, but even then should have been a rare, extreme circumstances maneuver. With spell slot mechanics, I can't see any good reason for a spellcaster to ever find himself in a situation where including himself in the area of his damaging spells' effects is optimal, compared to fueling a safe, lower level spell with his 3rd level spell slot. I acknowledge the OP's question and discussion that followed, but thought this was worth mentioning in light of the more recent opines about caster exclusion in Careful and Sculpt Spell.
While I don't think there's any good reason that those class features shoud omit the caster from their effects, spellcasters are much more flexible in 5e than to worry much over including themselves in their damaging effects anyway.
While I don't think there's any good reason that those class features shoud omit the caster from their effects, spellcasters are much more flexible in 5e than to worry much over including themselves in their damaging effects anyway.