Having just read the Sage Advice on Sorcerers and twinning, I see that my Sorcerer has no spells she can legally twin - Fire Bolt was the only one, and it’s not legal due to its ability to target objects.
Is there some spell that affects a single object that is ‘broken’ when twinned? Would I be opening Pandora’s box to allow it in my campaigns? (I don’t really understand the design intent, if it’s not to avoid some specific abuse.)
> You can twin firebolt if you target a single creature.
Nope. From Sage Advice on Sorcerers:
"If you know this rule yet are still unsure whether a particular spell qualifies for Twinned Spell, consult with your DM, who has the final say. If the two of you are curious about our design intent, here is the list of things that disqualify a spell for us:
The spell can target an object."
Fire Bolt can target an object. Therefore it is disqualified from being twinned. The question is not whether you are currently targeting a single creature, it is whether you have any options other than targeting a single creature. Otherwise you could twin a Fireball...at a single creature (each).
> PS. To answer the question in your post... Yes, the rules.
Great. Thanks for that. Why not just go with the classic 'RTFM'?
Anyone have any non-wise-ass answers to, "Would changing this specific rule in this specific way make some spell overpowered when twinned?"
I believe this Sage Advice is more RAI than RAW. Twinning firebolt doesn't break the game. It doesn't even break the game if you Quicken fireball and then twin firebolt because you've just used up a limited resource in the form of sorcery points. I can see the point of not allowing twin on magic missile but I would never ban a sorcerer at my table from using firebolt just because it can target an object. Twinning most single target spells isn't really game breaking. You could twin cast polymorph and turn players into wooly mammoths for more damage and that is allowed RAW. Teaming up with another caster to single cast polymorph and then having said caster cast Enlarge can one shot a critter does more damage than a twinned firebolt.
I would ignore it. I'm guessing they really didn't think about how many spells target both creatures and objects. Although I've always felt WotC hated sorcerers (I think Mearls once said he hated them) and twinned spell in particular.
The linked discussion doesn’t really speak to the question of spells that can target objects, except very peripherally (corpses). And Sage Advice, while not rules per se, is, in this case, explicitly trying to explain the reasons behind the RAW, including no object targets, so I accept it as RAW.
My question is not about that, though. My question is whether there’s some hidden pitfall in ignoring this particular rule? I agree that there doesn’t seem to be one, and that the designer’s intent with Twinned Spell is pointlessly narrow. Sorcerer’s main feature is metamagic; why cripple metamagic at every turn?
The linked discussion doesn’t really speak to the question of spells that can target objects, except very peripherally (corpses). And Sage Advice, while not rules per se, is, in this case, explicitly trying to explain the reasons behind the RAW, including no object targets, so I accept it as RAW.
My question is not about that, though. My question is whether there’s some hidden pitfall in ignoring this particular rule? I agree that there doesn’t seem to be one, and that the designer’s intent with Twinned Spell is pointlessly narrow. Sorcerer’s main feature is metamagic; why cripple metamagic at every turn?
I don’t think it will make much difference. TBH, it seems I’ve been playing my sorcerer incorrectly as I have occasionally twinned a fire bolt, glossing over that fact that it also targets objects. Oops. FWIW, it has not caused even the slightest bit of concern. *shrugs* Worst thing that comes to mind is that it lifts the ban on twinned Disintegrate. (I know I can’t do that. Boo) How bad do you think a twinned disintegrate will be?
Yes, Disintegrate is the one that people mention in this context, but it doesn't seem broken to me. Paying a huge number of sorcery points to twin a powerful spell seems to me to be exactly what Twinned spell is for, or else what is it for? Giving Sorcerers only weak/mostly pointless metamagic options turns the class into Wizard Jr. (And the fact that you get so few options is a kick in the butt that reminds me of the joke about hospital food: it's terrible, and there's not enough of it.)
Also, if the designers didn't want Disintegrate to be Twinned, why did they leave it to the 'no objects' clause to make it happen? (It seems to me that 'no objects' is intended to simplify the 'only one creature' language in the context of the many AoE spells that don't 'target' creatures at all, but rather points in space. If so, it failed miserably. 'No objects' just doesn't make any sense at all.)
As per RAW, Fire Bolt (creature) can be twinned. Fire Bolt (object) cannot.
Fireball is incapable of targeting a creature as the spell text does not mention creatures. Fireball can only target a point in space. So Fireball cannot be twinned (for many reasons).
Ice Knife cannot be twinned because it can "target" more than one creature with it's secondary effect.
TBH This particular instance of Sage Advice is probably one of the most unhelpful and poorly thought out I've seen. And that's saying something.
TLDR; Twinning Fire Bolt (creature) will not break your game.
The RAW in question are ambiguous: "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn’t have a range of self, you can spend a number of sorcery points equal to the spell’s level to target a second creature in range with the same spell (1 sorcery point if the spell is a cantrip)."
Does 'a spell that targets only one creature' refer to a particular instance (casting) of a spell (e.g. a Fire Bolt cast at a creature), or does it refer to a class of spell (one that can only target a single creature, e.g. Guiding Bolt, "A flash of light streaks toward a creature of your choice within range.")? The Sage Advice makes it clear that designer intent is the latter.
I don't agree with it, but it is clearly RAW, and, as a DM, I am specifically empowered by the exact same Sage Advice to ignore it. I agree that the cost of ignoring it seems to be effectively nil.
I find the Sage Advice more unhelpful than the original wording itself; the key thing is that you can hit two creatures when you could normally only hit one, and this is perfectly fine, because the cost scales with the spell (at a minimum of 1 sorcery point), so there's very little room for abuse.
It's also worth noting that Sorcerers as a class pay an additional cost for Twinned Spell which is that we have no access to a load of spells that we should very obviously have but which I think were removed because of twinning, for example True Polymorph.
In practice I've allowed twinning as a way to put down multiple Glyphs of Warding (expensive way to set a bigger trap) and a few other non-creature shenanigans where they seem reasonable.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Having just read the Sage Advice on Sorcerers and twinning, I see that my Sorcerer has no spells she can legally twin - Fire Bolt was the only one, and it’s not legal due to its ability to target objects.
Is there some spell that affects a single object that is ‘broken’ when twinned? Would I be opening Pandora’s box to allow it in my campaigns? (I don’t really understand the design intent, if it’s not to avoid some specific abuse.)
> You can twin firebolt if you target a single creature.
Nope. From Sage Advice on Sorcerers:
"If you know this rule yet are still unsure whether a particular spell qualifies for Twinned Spell, consult with your DM, who has the final say. If the two of you are curious about our design intent, here is the list of things that disqualify a spell for us:
Fire Bolt can target an object. Therefore it is disqualified from being twinned. The question is not whether you are currently targeting a single creature, it is whether you have any options other than targeting a single creature. Otherwise you could twin a Fireball...at a single creature (each).
> PS. To answer the question in your post... Yes, the rules.
Great. Thanks for that. Why not just go with the classic 'RTFM'?
Anyone have any non-wise-ass answers to, "Would changing this specific rule in this specific way make some spell overpowered when twinned?"
This has been discussed before.
I believe this Sage Advice is more RAI than RAW. Twinning firebolt doesn't break the game. It doesn't even break the game if you Quicken fireball and then twin firebolt because you've just used up a limited resource in the form of sorcery points. I can see the point of not allowing twin on magic missile but I would never ban a sorcerer at my table from using firebolt just because it can target an object. Twinning most single target spells isn't really game breaking. You could twin cast polymorph and turn players into wooly mammoths for more damage and that is allowed RAW. Teaming up with another caster to single cast polymorph and then having said caster cast Enlarge can one shot a critter does more damage than a twinned firebolt.
I would ignore it. I'm guessing they really didn't think about how many spells target both creatures and objects. Although I've always felt WotC hated sorcerers (I think Mearls once said he hated them) and twinned spell in particular.
The linked discussion doesn’t really speak to the question of spells that can target objects, except very peripherally (corpses). And Sage Advice, while not rules per se, is, in this case, explicitly trying to explain the reasons behind the RAW, including no object targets, so I accept it as RAW.
My question is not about that, though. My question is whether there’s some hidden pitfall in ignoring this particular rule? I agree that there doesn’t seem to be one, and that the designer’s intent with Twinned Spell is pointlessly narrow. Sorcerer’s main feature is metamagic; why cripple metamagic at every turn?
I don’t think it will make much difference. TBH, it seems I’ve been playing my sorcerer incorrectly as I have occasionally twinned a fire bolt, glossing over that fact that it also targets objects. Oops. FWIW, it has not caused even the slightest bit of concern. *shrugs* Worst thing that comes to mind is that it lifts the ban on twinned Disintegrate. (I know I can’t do that. Boo) How bad do you think a twinned disintegrate will be?
Yes, Disintegrate is the one that people mention in this context, but it doesn't seem broken to me. Paying a huge number of sorcery points to twin a powerful spell seems to me to be exactly what Twinned spell is for, or else what is it for? Giving Sorcerers only weak/mostly pointless metamagic options turns the class into Wizard Jr. (And the fact that you get so few options is a kick in the butt that reminds me of the joke about hospital food: it's terrible, and there's not enough of it.)
Also, if the designers didn't want Disintegrate to be Twinned, why did they leave it to the 'no objects' clause to make it happen? (It seems to me that 'no objects' is intended to simplify the 'only one creature' language in the context of the many AoE spells that don't 'target' creatures at all, but rather points in space. If so, it failed miserably. 'No objects' just doesn't make any sense at all.)
As per RAW, Fire Bolt (creature) can be twinned. Fire Bolt (object) cannot.
Fireball is incapable of targeting a creature as the spell text does not mention creatures. Fireball can only target a point in space. So Fireball cannot be twinned (for many reasons).
Ice Knife cannot be twinned because it can "target" more than one creature with it's secondary effect.
TBH This particular instance of Sage Advice is probably one of the most unhelpful and poorly thought out I've seen. And that's saying something.
TLDR; Twinning Fire Bolt (creature) will not break your game.
The RAW in question are ambiguous: "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn’t have a range of self, you can spend a number of sorcery points equal to the spell’s level to target a second creature in range with the same spell (1 sorcery point if the spell is a cantrip)."
Does 'a spell that targets only one creature' refer to a particular instance (casting) of a spell (e.g. a Fire Bolt cast at a creature), or does it refer to a class of spell (one that can only target a single creature, e.g. Guiding Bolt, "A flash of light streaks toward a creature of your choice within range.")? The Sage Advice makes it clear that designer intent is the latter.
I don't agree with it, but it is clearly RAW, and, as a DM, I am specifically empowered by the exact same Sage Advice to ignore it. I agree that the cost of ignoring it seems to be effectively nil.
I find the Sage Advice more unhelpful than the original wording itself; the key thing is that you can hit two creatures when you could normally only hit one, and this is perfectly fine, because the cost scales with the spell (at a minimum of 1 sorcery point), so there's very little room for abuse.
It's also worth noting that Sorcerers as a class pay an additional cost for Twinned Spell which is that we have no access to a load of spells that we should very obviously have but which I think were removed because of twinning, for example True Polymorph.
In practice I've allowed twinning as a way to put down multiple Glyphs of Warding (expensive way to set a bigger trap) and a few other non-creature shenanigans where they seem reasonable.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.