Right, so then we go back to Polymorph. Polymorph can be twinned, and each person can attack multiple creatures in the same round.
Yeah, but those attacks aren't part of the spell's effect. The spell's effect is to transform its target into a beast. When your polymorphed buddy mauls a goblin, that goblin doesn't transform too. This is exactly why I brought up the Rakshasa earlier.
Here's another thought experiment. You're playing a 7th level Oath of the Ancients Paladin, so you resist all spell damage. Someone polymorphs into a bear and bites you. Do you resist the damage? What about the damage from Dragon's Breath? Did you answer differently for each spell?
The crux of the Polymorph argument is that the enemy couldn't have been mauled if the spell hadn't been cast, so in a sense the enemy being mauled is an effect of the spell. But every spell can change the outcome of the fight so you can justify almost anything this way. If your buddy gets knocked unconscious and you cast Cure Wounds on them, would you say that any creature they hit after they wake back up is suffering the effects of Cure Wounds? They wouldn't have gotten attacked if you hadn't healed your friend.
If you're hung up on whether being in the spell's area counts as targeting, here's a few places where the rules talk about targeting something by including it in a spell's area.
PH chapter 9:
Total Cover
A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect.
PH chapter 10:
Targeting Yourself
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.
Fireball:
Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
Polymorph counterexample aside, Dragon's Breath has a casting time of one action. It is fully cast when the caster's turn ends and can't be counterspelled at that point.
Twinned Spell doesn't care about timing or duration though. If there were a Delayed Disintegrate spell that fired a beam 3 rounds after you cast the spell, it'd still be twinnable.
Charm Person is twinnable yet both targets of that twinned CP might be able to cast spells that are not twinnable, like Fireball, while charmed. That's because we don't consider the two charmed creatures' actions to be part of the Charm Person spell. Crown of Madness or Suggestion, same considerations. The Dominate spells even more so, because with those spells the caster even decides on the dominated creatures' actions.
I don't think how many people were caught off-guard should be relevant to whether Jeremy's ruling matches what the Player's Handbook says about Twinned Spell. Humans are designed to find patterns. I totally see why people expect Dragon's Breath to work. It's not hard to find questions that have objectively correct but surprising answers. Here's a neat little math problem I stole from this YouTube video:
A bat and a ball cost $1.10. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
Your gut feeling might be to answer $0.10. However if you write the problem down and solve for X you'll find it's $0.05.
Are the rules of algebra wrong because you found a question that surprised you? If you're feeling brave, check out the Monty Hall problem too.
To be clear I totally get that sometimes the Twinned Spell rules aren't fun. Dragon's Breath is the most controversial spell but Chaos Bolt is another example of something that seems like it should be allowed, but it's technically off-limits because there's a tiny chance you'll target two creatures. The fact that most players expect it to work, would probably feel cheated if you said no and allowing it doesn't break anything is a good enough reason to break the rules.
Right, so then we go back to Polymorph. Polymorph can be twinned, and each person can attack multiple creatures in the same round.
Yeah, but those attacks aren't part of the spell's effect. The spell's effect is to transform its target into a beast. When your polymorphed buddy mauls a goblin, that goblin doesn't transform too.
DB's effect is to transmute a creature into one that can breathe a 15 ft cone of energy. When your DB'ed buddy breathes on a goblin, that goblin doesn't get to breathe fire/ice/poison/acid/lightning as well.
Polymorph counterexample aside, Dragon's Breath has a casting time of one action. It is fully cast when the caster's turn ends and can't be counterspelled at that point.
Twinned Spell doesn't care about timing or duration though. If there were a Delayed Disintegrate spell that fired a beam 3 rounds after you cast the spell, it'd still be twinnable.
It's not about timing or duration. It's about being over and done with. The caster stays concentrating on DB to keep the effect going, but is not casting the spell when the "targets" of the cone are being targeted. Casting the spell has nothing to do with whoever gets caught in the cone, because the only target of the spell is the creature it's actually cast on.
Jeremy also doesn't seem to see a problem with the multiclassing rules causing half-casters to lose caster level, which makes me sad because it'll probably never get errata.
This is legitimate, otherwise half casters could game the system and cast higher spells than either (and it's also balanced appropriately). A level 5 Ranger/level 5 Paladin, would be a 6th level caster. And that's weird.
Also, a 14th level (3 Ranger/3 Paladin/4 EK/4 AT) would cast spells as a level 8 caster, better than if they had just stayed as a single-class Ranger or Paladin.
4. Firebolt/Disintegrate can't be Twinned as they can target objects. Also the fact unless it's stated spells can't target objects.
What decision do you hate?
I specifically enforce this one at my table because I believe the wording was intentional as a balancing factor. It hasn't the least bit affected our games other than make Warlocks interested in cantrips other than Eldritch Blast.
Jeremy also doesn't seem to see a problem with the multiclassing rules causing half-casters to lose caster level, which makes me sad because it'll probably never get errata.
This is legitimate, otherwise half casters could game the system and cast higher spells than either (and it's also balanced appropriately). A level 5 Ranger/level 5 Paladin, would be a 6th level caster. And that's weird.
Also, a 14th level (3 Ranger/3 Paladin/4 EK/4 AT) would cast spells as a level 8 caster, better than if they had just stayed as a single-class Ranger or Paladin.
How is a Ranger 5/Paladin 5 casting at caster level 6 weirder than casting at caster level 4? They sound equally weird to me, since an L10 of either casts at 5. An L11 of either casts at 6, which equals 6/5 roundup but not 6/5 roundup - surely that's also very weird.
You can't just argue Ranger and Paladin in a vacuum - you also need to account for Artificers, who round up stock.
Let's not pretend the only options are rounding individual classes up or down. The rule could say to add Ranger and Paladin levels together, then divide by 2 (with some rounding rule), and the same for EK and AT levels (add them together, divide by 3, follow some rounding rule). This would at least reduce rounding errors in general without any loss of simplicity, since you have to add and divide anyway, this just changes the order. In fact, you gain simplicity in some cases - for Ranger/Paladin, instead of two divisions and two additions, you'd perform one addition and one division.
Most importantly, I don't think it's balanced at all - Ranger and Paladin don't multiclass well and never will, so it's weird to penalize doing so while not penalizing far more powerful mixes like Sorcerer/Warlock. It's potentially sane to penalize AT/EK, since they do have abilities that would otherwise mix well, but overall the system penalizes builds that were weak to begin with, functionally helping to drive people into more powerful builds for no apparent reason.
DB's effect is to transmute a creature into one that can breathe a 15 ft cone of energy. When your DB'ed buddy breathes on a goblin, that goblin doesn't get to breathe fire/ice/poison/acid/lightning as well.
Huh, you skipped over the part of my post that shows there's clearly a difference. I wonder why.
Casting the spell has nothing to do with whoever gets caught in the cone, because the only target of the spell is the creature it's actually cast on.
The rules clearly disagree with you on this point, and so does the plain English meaning of the word. Here's Merriam-Webster:
This is legitimate, otherwise half casters could game the system and cast higher spells than either (and it's also balanced appropriately). A level 5 Ranger/level 5 Paladin, would be a 6th level caster. And that's weird.
Here's another weird thing: A 3rd level wizard gains 1 level in cleric and goes from a 3rd level spellcaster to a 4th level spellcaster. A 5th level Paladin does the same thing and goes from a 3rd level spellcaster to a 3rd level spellcaster.
One of those weird scenarios is a bigger problem than the other if you ask me.
Also, a 14th level (3 Ranger/3 Paladin/4 EK/4 AT) would cast spells as a level 8 caster, better than if they had just stayed as a single-class Ranger or Paladin.
In that one particular regard, yes. It's otherwise still a bad multiclassing build, still has less spell slots than if you'd gone 6 Ranger + 8 full spellcasting class, and still can't use those higher level slots to prepare higher level spells. I think it sucks that real, common, practical builds like EK/Wizard have to be penalized on 2 out of every 3 levels to make sure purely hypothetical builds aren't slightly less bad.
If it really bothers you, rounding up once after adding all the levels gives the results you'd expect while also fixing the real builds: ⌈5/2 + 1⌉ = 4, ⌈5/2 + 5/2⌉ = 5 and ⌈3/2 + 3/2 + 4/3 + 4/3⌉ = 6. But it's easier to just say "round your levels in these classes up".
And Dragon's Breath is certainly capable of targeting more than one creature, unless you want to make the case that you're totally not killing creatures with the spell when you use an action that's only available while the spell's active, that produces an area effect defined by the spell, which then forces a saving throw and inflicts damage that are also defined by the spell. In which case, you should also rule that a Rakshasa isn't immune to the spell.
Dragon's Breath can only target one creature when it is cast, which is all that's relevant - whether or not it will be able to target multiple creatures in the future is immaterial.
DB's effect is to transmute a creature into one that can breathe a 15 ft cone of energy. When your DB'ed buddy breathes on a goblin, that goblin doesn't get to breathe fire/ice/poison/acid/lightning as well.
Huh, you skipped over the part of my post that shows there's clearly a difference. I wonder why.
Casting the spell has nothing to do with whoever gets caught in the cone, because the only target of the spell is the creature it's actually cast on.
The rules clearly disagree with you on this point, and so does the plain English meaning of the word. Here's Merriam-Webster:
This is legitimate, otherwise half casters could game the system and cast higher spells than either (and it's also balanced appropriately). A level 5 Ranger/level 5 Paladin, would be a 6th level caster. And that's weird.
Here's another weird thing: A 3rd level wizard gains 1 level in cleric and goes from a 3rd level spellcaster to a 4th level spellcaster. A 5th level Paladin does the same thing and goes from a 3rd level spellcaster to a 3rd level spellcaster.
One of those weird scenarios is a bigger problem than the other if you ask me.
Also, a 14th level (3 Ranger/3 Paladin/4 EK/4 AT) would cast spells as a level 8 caster, better than if they had just stayed as a single-class Ranger or Paladin.
In that one particular regard, yes. It's otherwise still a bad multiclassing build, still has less spell slots than if you'd gone 6 Ranger + 8 full spellcasting class, and still can't use those higher level slots to prepare higher level spells. I think it sucks that real, common, practical builds like EK/Wizard have to be penalized on 2 out of every 3 levels to make sure purely hypothetical builds aren't slightly less bad.
If it really bothers you, rounding up once after adding all the levels gives the results you'd expect while also fixing the real builds: ⌈5/2 + 1⌉ = 4, ⌈5/2 + 5/2⌉ = 5 and ⌈3/2 + 3/2 + 4/3 + 4/3⌉ = 6. But it's easier to just say "round your levels in these classes up".
No. It doesn’t fix anything. It was done purposefully to balance pure casters that get spells each level and half casters that get spells AND class features on many levels.
It was done on purpose and for legitimate reasons. Once you stop looking at level design in a vacuum you’ll see that it’s a very deliberate way to spread out benefits in a balanced fashion.
I described two cases already that are completely illogical. Combining a half caster and another half caster to be *better* than a pure half caster for spell levels? That’s just silly. Same with 4 EK/4 AT having the same spell levels as an 8 ranger.
Artificer is rounded up because again, it has fewer potent class features and suffers from multiclass more because it’s features scale more so than other classes.
You guys go ahead and Homebrew it away all you want though.
“I think it sucks that real, common, practical builds like EK/Wizard have to be penalized on 2 out of every 3 levels to make sure purely hypothetical builds aren't slightly less bad.”
This is the crux of your argument. Describe a level where the EK is penalized and I’ll show you that it has a class feature or feat or other benefit that likely makes up for it. Because you have your microscope out to analyze spell levels, you’ve missed the entire microcosm of level design beside you.
This is often why game design is much more nuanced than it looks on the surface.
Edit: If you want me to draw it out later, I can. I can make a spreadsheet, comparing multiclass levels to single class levels and the accumulation of feats/spells/class features.
DB's effect is to transmute a creature into one that can breathe a 15 ft cone of energy. When your DB'ed buddy breathes on a goblin, that goblin doesn't get to breathe fire/ice/poison/acid/lightning as well.
1) Huh, you skipped over the part of my post that shows there's clearly a difference. I wonder why.
Casting the spell has nothing to do with whoever gets caught in the cone, because the only target of the spell is the creature it's actually cast on.
2) The rules clearly disagree with you on this point, and so does the plain English meaning of the word. Here's Merriam-Webster:
1) What's that? Are you saying the cone of energy is part of the spell? Because it's pretty clear casting Dragon's Breath doesn't create energy cones.
2) You can't target someone you can't see with a spell. The rules state so unequivocally. The energy cone can hit creatures the caster couldn't see at the moment of casting or even ever - creatures that by the rules simply can't be targets of the spell. Hence, being affected by the cone doesn't mean a creature is a target of Dragon's Breath.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The spell is described as having a range/area, though, so the secondary targeting of the breath weapon is considered part of the spell.
That's a bit of a leap, considering there's a range of touch. Probably more a case of shorthand spell descriptions being limited in how precise and detailed they can be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
No. It doesn’t fix anything. It was done purposefully to balance pure casters that get spells each level and half casters that get spells AND class features on many levels.
What exactly is being balanced here and what's your proof that it's deliberate? You add 1 level of cleric to any single-classed build and you get +1 caster level unless it happens to be a partial caster. I have no reason to believe this is anything but a rounding error the designers overlooked. Jeremy has never said "Oh yeah, we totally did that on purpose because otherwise half-casters would be too good."
I described two cases already that are completely illogical. Combining a half caster and another half caster to be *better* than a pure half caster for spell levels? That’s just silly. Same with 4 EK/4 AT having the same spell levels as an 8 ranger.
And I described how that can be fixed while still producing the expected results on real builds. You take 4/3 + 4/3 = 8/3 = 2.6666... and round that up once to get caster level 3 (which is exactly the same as an 8th level EK) instead of doing the silly thing of rounding 4/3 down twice.
A single-classed EK 4 is clearly considered a 2nd level caster so their levels are being rounded up while single-classed (⌈4/3⌉ = 2) . If you add a level of Rogue they're still considered a 2nd level caster. Why round down specifically in the case that you add another spellcasting class, and why is that reason specific to partial casters? You never see X wizard + Y cleric add up to anything but X + Y.
This is the crux of your argument. Describe a level where the EK is penalized and I’ll show you that it has a class feature or feat or other benefit that likely makes up for it.
You could do that, and it'd be a pointless exercise. I could add some arbitrary rule that says if you multiclass Paladin with anything you don't get your last level's worth of Paladin features. You could then point out "Yeah but X Paladin/1 Hexblade is still super good!" And it is! But that doesn't justify singling out Paladins with an arbitrary restriction that doesn't apply to other spellcasters and doesn't even address what makes X Paladin/1 Hexblade so good in the first place. The fact that you can find some post-hoc reason to justify my decision doesn't change the fact that it was arbitrary and breaks the general rule that when you multiclass X levels in some class and Y levels in another you keep your Xth level class features from the first and your Yth level class features from the second.
1) What's that? Are you saying the cone of energy is part of the spell? Because it's pretty clear casting Dragon's Breath doesn't create energy cones.
Yes. Obviously it's part of the spell. That's why I've brought up Rakshasas and resistance to spell damage and we could bring antimagic fields into this too for fun. There's a very clear difference between turning someone into a bear and then proceeding to do things every other bear in the multiverse can do, and casting a spell that lets them spew magic at will.
You might as well argue that casting Shadow Blade or Holy Weapon doesn't deal magical damage because that part comes later. And when you move creatures around with Telekinesis you're not targeting them with the spell, you're just transmuting yourself into a creature that can magically move things. Or if you deliver a spell through your familiar, you're not really applying the spell to your target because there was a middleman that had to use their reaction involved. If we take this far enough we can even argue that you're not really casting a spell on someone when you use Fireball, you're just conjuring fire in their general vicinity.
But when you start to think about the implications of those decisions and how they'd interact with things like magic resistance and antimagic fields it becomes a lot harder to argue that you're not really applying Dragon's Breath to your target when you burn them to death.
2) You can't target someone you can't see with a spell. The rules state so unequivocally.
They don't. As a general rule you can target someone you can't see, and each spell individually tells you if that's not true. Usually only the ones that involve no attack and no area, because the attack rules already adjust your hit chance when you can't see and area effects don't discriminate. There's nothing stopping you from firing off a Fireball completely blind.
The energy cone can hit creatures the caster couldn't see at the moment of casting or even ever - creatures that by the rules simply can't be targets of the spell.
I could do the same thing with Delayed Blast Fireball. I cast it now, 9 rounds later some unsuspecting creature enters the room and gets blown up. They're obviously a target. They took the damage, and there's no middleman you can pin the blame on here. The spell was applied directly to them. That's why I mentioned my hypothetical Delayed Disintegrate earlier; the only thing keeping Delayed Blast Fireball from being twinned is that it's not limited to one creature.
The logic of the Twinned Spell rule is that you want to limit the potential damage/effect due to the low resource cost of using the ability. Any spell with an AoE already has a wildly variable (and large) damage potential. Fireball (for example) at 3rd level can do anywhere from 4 to 2400 damage against medium sized creatures (1 creature, made the save, min damage vs ~50 creatures, all fail the save, max damage). Doubling that can lead to huge differentials in damage potential for very limited cost.
Dragons Breath is an oddly worded spell, but the potential range of damage is pretty absurd even from one casting. I can see why they would want that to be limited and why they would rule twinning the spell doesn't work. The spell represents an odd "gap" in the rule that JCs ruling attempted to fix. You may not like it, but the logic (at least to me) is perfectly clear.
LOL. You think this stuff is bad, you should check out some of the drivel coming out of Coleville. It even comes with holier-than-thou attitude on top. /killmenow!
What do you mean? Matt Colville isn't a designer for D&D, unlike Crawford. Therefore his advice or opinions doesn't have any bearing on the design of the game. Also I've never got a 'holier-than-thou' vibe from him
He publishes a D&D series "Running the game" on Youtube. His know-it-all way of speaking makes me gag. Probably just me, but dang I can't stand him. You know how you once in a while meet someone and instantly think "This person is a xxxx!" That's that guy! (to me). Just my personal opinion. Crawford though, he seems quite humble in how he speaks and presents himself. Much prefer those kinds of folks, even if they mix things up occasionally (Re: this topic). :)
Personally, I've never found Matt Colville to have a matter of fact way of speaking. His Running the Game series is invaluable for new DMs to have access to someone passionate and experienced in the hobby. Obviously you're entitled to whatever opinion you may have about any content creators, but Matt Colville is one of the most beloved pillars of the DnD community, and I feel you're being a little harsh in your judgements and assumptions to suggest that his stuff is so unbearable that you would rather die than watch it, even in joke. His running the game series is a teaching medium, and I'd be really worried if my teacher didn't feel confident in their abiltiies.
If you're an experienced DM and your methods and beliefs differ from his, then it's pretty clear that series isn't for you, and it doesn't impact your life at all. Sage Advice rulings, on the other hand, are supposed to be an official source of rulings to help DMs, rather than purely personal opinion. Not to mention that Jeremy represents a company in his responses.
The Twinned Spell ruling would make more sense if TS said "... must be incapable of EFFECTING more than one creature at the spell’s current level". Then spells like Bane/Bless, Fireball, Magic Missile or indeed Dragons Breath would not work with TS.
And even then we would STILL need rules clarification, because as others have already pointed out, Dragons Breath is cast ON A SINGLE TARGET!
Firstly, not many spells would be stopped from being twinned if it only stopped those which could effect multiple creatures (cause multiple creatures to happen, or basically create multiple creatures). I will assume you mean affecting.
But, even if the wording was as you describe, that would lead to even more confusion. For instance, you could well argue that Heal Wounds affects multiple creatures, by allowing the healed creature to continue affecting other creatures when they would otherwise be dead. Eldritch Blast could be said to affect multiple creatures if it killed one, by forcing the rest to re-evaluate tactics, or by stopping that one from killing another. The vast majority of spells could be stopped from being twinned in that way.
I'll also add (on the dragon's breath thing) two additional things: The breath weapon's duration is keyed to the duration of the spell, and the damage of the breath weapon scales with spell level. That clearly ties the damage and targeting of the spell to the spell itself, really no different than any other traditional AoE with an extended duration.
If dragon's breath was an instantaneous duration spell that still granted a minute's use of the breath weapon, I could see an argument that the spell only truly targets one creature, because the spell would be over (per RAW) the moment it was cast and the AoE targets would then "not" be targets of the spell itself. It's not worded that way though.
When it comes to the Twinned DB argument, I would say that in D&D, the target of a spell is a clearly defined term, and shouldn't just be viewed in Plain English or similar. In terms of DB, it is only capable of targeting one creature. It may be able to affect multiple creatures through secondary means (the targeted creature using their dragon breath on other creatures), but it is not targeting them any more than a creature hit by the breath weapon of someone Polymorphed into a dragon is the target of the Polymorph spell.
1) What's that? Are you saying the cone of energy is part of the spell? Because it's pretty clear casting Dragon's Breath doesn't create energy cones.
Yes. Obviously it's part of the spell. That's why I've brought up Rakshasas and resistance to spell damage and we could bring antimagic fields into this too for fun. There's a very clear difference between turning someone into a bear and then proceeding to do things every other bear in the multiverse can do, and casting a spell that lets them spew magic at will.
You might as well argue that casting Shadow Blade or Holy Weapon doesn't deal magical damage because that part comes later. And when you move creatures around with Telekinesis you're not targeting them with the spell, you're just transmuting yourself into a creature that can magically move things. Or if you deliver a spell through your familiar, you're not really applying the spell to your target because there was a middleman that had to use their reaction involved. If we take this far enough we can even argue that you're not really casting a spell on someone when you use Fireball, you're just conjuring fire in their general vicinity.
But when you start to think about the implications of those decisions and how they'd interact with things like magic resistance and antimagic fields it becomes a lot harder to argue that you're not really applying Dragon's Breath to your target when you burn them to death.
Hmm, would you argue that the target of an attack with the shadow blade weapon or a holy weapon is a target of the shadow blade/holy weapon spell? I certainly wouldn't. Yea it's obviously a magical effect, but that is not really what we're discussing.
Telekineses is a little more interesting, but since the range of the spell is describing the range wihtin which you can affect objects, I'd say that they are being targeted by the spell, where as dragon's breath's ability targets entirely seperately from the spell being cast, and it's range has nothing to do with the spell's range.
The spellcasting rules for familiar are pretty clear that it's casting as if you are casting the spel.. That is not the case with dragon's breath.
I'll be honest I don't see why it'd cause problems with regards to anti-magic stuff.. It is still a magical effect caused by a spell.. It's just that being targeted by the abiliyt granted by the spell is not being targeted by the spell itself.. .Just as being targeted by the an attack with shadowblade weapon is not being targeted by the shadowblade spell.
Let me put it this way... If summon a shadow spawn and that shadow spawn attacks an enemy, surely the enemy is not being targeted by the summon shadowspawn spell.. It's being affected yes, but it's not being targted by the spell.
1) What's that? Are you saying the cone of energy is part of the spell? Because it's pretty clear casting Dragon's Breath doesn't create energy cones.
Yes. Obviously it's part of the spell. That's why I've brought up Rakshasas and resistance to spell damage and we could bring antimagic fields into this too for fun. There's a very clear difference between turning someone into a bear and then proceeding to do things every other bear in the multiverse can do, and casting a spell that lets them spew magic at will.
You might as well argue that casting Shadow Blade or Holy Weapon doesn't deal magical damage because that part comes later. And when you move creatures around with Telekinesis you're not targeting them with the spell, you're just transmuting yourself into a creature that can magically move things. Or if you deliver a spell through your familiar, you're not really applying the spell to your target because there was a middleman that had to use their reaction involved. If we take this far enough we can even argue that you're not really casting a spell on someone when you use Fireball, you're just conjuring fire in their general vicinity.
But when you start to think about the implications of those decisions and how they'd interact with things like magic resistance and antimagic fields it becomes a lot harder to argue that you're not really applying Dragon's Breath to your target when you burn them to death.
Hmm, would you argue that the target of an attack with the shadow blade weapon or a holy weapon is a target of the shadow blade/holy weapon spell? I certainly wouldn't. Yea it's obviously a magical effect, but that is not really what we're discussing.
Telekineses is a little more interesting, but since the range of the spell is describing the range wihtin which you can affect objects, I'd say that they are being targeted by the spell, where as dragon's breath's ability targets entirely seperately from the spell being cast.
The spellcasting rules for familiar are pretty clear that it's casting as if you are casting the spel.. That is not the case with dragon's breath.
I'll be honest I don't see why it'd cause problems with regards to anti-magic stuff.. It is still a magical effect caused by a spell.. It's just that being targeted by the abiliyt granted by the spell is not being targeted by the spell itself.. .Just as being targeted by the an attack with shadowblade is not being targeted by the shadowblade spell.
Most of these are moot to this conversation though...Twin spell specifically requires the spell to target one creature and not target self. Spirit Weapon and Holy Weapon don't target a creature with their casting (ineligible), Shadow Blade targets self (ineligible), telekinesis can target multiple creatures (just not at once) and objects, so it is ineligible per the JC ruling/SAC.
They're not moot to the conversation with regards what qualifies as being targeted by a spell, which is what the conversation is partly about. Shadowblade can obviously not be twinned, due to having a target of self, but the argument against dragon's breath relies on counting targets of someone using the effect of a spell, as being targets of the spell itself.
The fact that Dragon's breath has a range of touch and says it imbues a power indicates to me that the direct targeting and effect of the spell is to grant a power to a creature, the spell is not casting the breath weapon, the creature imbued with the power is using an ability.
Yeah, but those attacks aren't part of the spell's effect. The spell's effect is to transform its target into a beast. When your polymorphed buddy mauls a goblin, that goblin doesn't transform too. This is exactly why I brought up the Rakshasa earlier.
Here's another thought experiment. You're playing a 7th level Oath of the Ancients Paladin, so you resist all spell damage. Someone polymorphs into a bear and bites you. Do you resist the damage? What about the damage from Dragon's Breath? Did you answer differently for each spell?
The crux of the Polymorph argument is that the enemy couldn't have been mauled if the spell hadn't been cast, so in a sense the enemy being mauled is an effect of the spell. But every spell can change the outcome of the fight so you can justify almost anything this way. If your buddy gets knocked unconscious and you cast Cure Wounds on them, would you say that any creature they hit after they wake back up is suffering the effects of Cure Wounds? They wouldn't have gotten attacked if you hadn't healed your friend.
If you're hung up on whether being in the spell's area counts as targeting, here's a few places where the rules talk about targeting something by including it in a spell's area.
PH chapter 9:
PH chapter 10:
Fireball:
Twinned Spell doesn't care about timing or duration though. If there were a Delayed Disintegrate spell that fired a beam 3 rounds after you cast the spell, it'd still be twinnable.
This is basically the Polymorph argument.
I don't think how many people were caught off-guard should be relevant to whether Jeremy's ruling matches what the Player's Handbook says about Twinned Spell. Humans are designed to find patterns. I totally see why people expect Dragon's Breath to work. It's not hard to find questions that have objectively correct but surprising answers. Here's a neat little math problem I stole from this YouTube video:
A bat and a ball cost $1.10. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
Your gut feeling might be to answer $0.10. However if you write the problem down and solve for X you'll find it's $0.05.
Are the rules of algebra wrong because you found a question that surprised you? If you're feeling brave, check out the Monty Hall problem too.
To be clear I totally get that sometimes the Twinned Spell rules aren't fun. Dragon's Breath is the most controversial spell but Chaos Bolt is another example of something that seems like it should be allowed, but it's technically off-limits because there's a tiny chance you'll target two creatures. The fact that most players expect it to work, would probably feel cheated if you said no and allowing it doesn't break anything is a good enough reason to break the rules.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
DB's effect is to transmute a creature into one that can breathe a 15 ft cone of energy. When your DB'ed buddy breathes on a goblin, that goblin doesn't get to breathe fire/ice/poison/acid/lightning as well.
It's the exact same argument.
It's not about timing or duration. It's about being over and done with. The caster stays concentrating on DB to keep the effect going, but is not casting the spell when the "targets" of the cone are being targeted. Casting the spell has nothing to do with whoever gets caught in the cone, because the only target of the spell is the creature it's actually cast on.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This is legitimate, otherwise half casters could game the system and cast higher spells than either (and it's also balanced appropriately). A level 5 Ranger/level 5 Paladin, would be a 6th level caster. And that's weird.
Also, a 14th level (3 Ranger/3 Paladin/4 EK/4 AT) would cast spells as a level 8 caster, better than if they had just stayed as a single-class Ranger or Paladin.
I specifically enforce this one at my table because I believe the wording was intentional as a balancing factor. It hasn't the least bit affected our games other than make Warlocks interested in cantrips other than Eldritch Blast.
Huh, you skipped over the part of my post that shows there's clearly a difference. I wonder why.
The rules clearly disagree with you on this point, and so does the plain English meaning of the word. Here's Merriam-Webster:
Here's another weird thing: A 3rd level wizard gains 1 level in cleric and goes from a 3rd level spellcaster to a 4th level spellcaster. A 5th level Paladin does the same thing and goes from a 3rd level spellcaster to a 3rd level spellcaster.
One of those weird scenarios is a bigger problem than the other if you ask me.
In that one particular regard, yes. It's otherwise still a bad multiclassing build, still has less spell slots than if you'd gone 6 Ranger + 8 full spellcasting class, and still can't use those higher level slots to prepare higher level spells. I think it sucks that real, common, practical builds like EK/Wizard have to be penalized on 2 out of every 3 levels to make sure purely hypothetical builds aren't slightly less bad.
If it really bothers you, rounding up once after adding all the levels gives the results you'd expect while also fixing the real builds: ⌈5/2 + 1⌉ = 4, ⌈5/2 + 5/2⌉ = 5 and ⌈3/2 + 3/2 + 4/3 + 4/3⌉ = 6. But it's easier to just say "round your levels in these classes up".
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Dragon's Breath can only target one creature when it is cast, which is all that's relevant - whether or not it will be able to target multiple creatures in the future is immaterial.
No. It doesn’t fix anything. It was done purposefully to balance pure casters that get spells each level and half casters that get spells AND class features on many levels.
It was done on purpose and for legitimate reasons. Once you stop looking at level design in a vacuum you’ll see that it’s a very deliberate way to spread out benefits in a balanced fashion.
I described two cases already that are completely illogical. Combining a half caster and another half caster to be *better* than a pure half caster for spell levels? That’s just silly. Same with 4 EK/4 AT having the same spell levels as an 8 ranger.
Artificer is rounded up because again, it has fewer potent class features and suffers from multiclass more because it’s features scale more so than other classes.
You guys go ahead and Homebrew it away all you want though.
“I think it sucks that real, common, practical builds like EK/Wizard have to be penalized on 2 out of every 3 levels to make sure purely hypothetical builds aren't slightly less bad.”
This is the crux of your argument. Describe a level where the EK is penalized and I’ll show you that it has a class feature or feat or other benefit that likely makes up for it. Because you have your microscope out to analyze spell levels, you’ve missed the entire microcosm of level design beside you.
This is often why game design is much more nuanced than it looks on the surface.
Edit: If you want me to draw it out later, I can. I can make a spreadsheet, comparing multiclass levels to single class levels and the accumulation of feats/spells/class features.
1) What's that? Are you saying the cone of energy is part of the spell? Because it's pretty clear casting Dragon's Breath doesn't create energy cones.
2) You can't target someone you can't see with a spell. The rules state so unequivocally. The energy cone can hit creatures the caster couldn't see at the moment of casting or even ever - creatures that by the rules simply can't be targets of the spell. Hence, being affected by the cone doesn't mean a creature is a target of Dragon's Breath.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That's a bit of a leap, considering there's a range of touch. Probably more a case of shorthand spell descriptions being limited in how precise and detailed they can be.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
What exactly is being balanced here and what's your proof that it's deliberate? You add 1 level of cleric to any single-classed build and you get +1 caster level unless it happens to be a partial caster. I have no reason to believe this is anything but a rounding error the designers overlooked. Jeremy has never said "Oh yeah, we totally did that on purpose because otherwise half-casters would be too good."
And I described how that can be fixed while still producing the expected results on real builds. You take 4/3 + 4/3 = 8/3 = 2.6666... and round that up once to get caster level 3 (which is exactly the same as an 8th level EK) instead of doing the silly thing of rounding 4/3 down twice.
A single-classed EK 4 is clearly considered a 2nd level caster so their levels are being rounded up while single-classed (⌈4/3⌉ = 2) . If you add a level of Rogue they're still considered a 2nd level caster. Why round down specifically in the case that you add another spellcasting class, and why is that reason specific to partial casters? You never see X wizard + Y cleric add up to anything but X + Y.
You could do that, and it'd be a pointless exercise. I could add some arbitrary rule that says if you multiclass Paladin with anything you don't get your last level's worth of Paladin features. You could then point out "Yeah but X Paladin/1 Hexblade is still super good!" And it is! But that doesn't justify singling out Paladins with an arbitrary restriction that doesn't apply to other spellcasters and doesn't even address what makes X Paladin/1 Hexblade so good in the first place. The fact that you can find some post-hoc reason to justify my decision doesn't change the fact that it was arbitrary and breaks the general rule that when you multiclass X levels in some class and Y levels in another you keep your Xth level class features from the first and your Yth level class features from the second.
Yes. Obviously it's part of the spell. That's why I've brought up Rakshasas and resistance to spell damage and we could bring antimagic fields into this too for fun. There's a very clear difference between turning someone into a bear and then proceeding to do things every other bear in the multiverse can do, and casting a spell that lets them spew magic at will.
You might as well argue that casting Shadow Blade or Holy Weapon doesn't deal magical damage because that part comes later. And when you move creatures around with Telekinesis you're not targeting them with the spell, you're just transmuting yourself into a creature that can magically move things. Or if you deliver a spell through your familiar, you're not really applying the spell to your target because there was a middleman that had to use their reaction involved. If we take this far enough we can even argue that you're not really casting a spell on someone when you use Fireball, you're just conjuring fire in their general vicinity.
But when you start to think about the implications of those decisions and how they'd interact with things like magic resistance and antimagic fields it becomes a lot harder to argue that you're not really applying Dragon's Breath to your target when you burn them to death.
They don't. As a general rule you can target someone you can't see, and each spell individually tells you if that's not true. Usually only the ones that involve no attack and no area, because the attack rules already adjust your hit chance when you can't see and area effects don't discriminate. There's nothing stopping you from firing off a Fireball completely blind.
I could do the same thing with Delayed Blast Fireball. I cast it now, 9 rounds later some unsuspecting creature enters the room and gets blown up. They're obviously a target. They took the damage, and there's no middleman you can pin the blame on here. The spell was applied directly to them. That's why I mentioned my hypothetical Delayed Disintegrate earlier; the only thing keeping Delayed Blast Fireball from being twinned is that it's not limited to one creature.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
The logic of the Twinned Spell rule is that you want to limit the potential damage/effect due to the low resource cost of using the ability. Any spell with an AoE already has a wildly variable (and large) damage potential. Fireball (for example) at 3rd level can do anywhere from 4 to 2400 damage against medium sized creatures (1 creature, made the save, min damage vs ~50 creatures, all fail the save, max damage). Doubling that can lead to huge differentials in damage potential for very limited cost.
Dragons Breath is an oddly worded spell, but the potential range of damage is pretty absurd even from one casting. I can see why they would want that to be limited and why they would rule twinning the spell doesn't work. The spell represents an odd "gap" in the rule that JCs ruling attempted to fix. You may not like it, but the logic (at least to me) is perfectly clear.
Personally, I've never found Matt Colville to have a matter of fact way of speaking. His Running the Game series is invaluable for new DMs to have access to someone passionate and experienced in the hobby. Obviously you're entitled to whatever opinion you may have about any content creators, but Matt Colville is one of the most beloved pillars of the DnD community, and I feel you're being a little harsh in your judgements and assumptions to suggest that his stuff is so unbearable that you would rather die than watch it, even in joke. His running the game series is a teaching medium, and I'd be really worried if my teacher didn't feel confident in their abiltiies.
If you're an experienced DM and your methods and beliefs differ from his, then it's pretty clear that series isn't for you, and it doesn't impact your life at all. Sage Advice rulings, on the other hand, are supposed to be an official source of rulings to help DMs, rather than purely personal opinion. Not to mention that Jeremy represents a company in his responses.
Firstly, not many spells would be stopped from being twinned if it only stopped those which could effect multiple creatures (cause multiple creatures to happen, or basically create multiple creatures). I will assume you mean affecting.
But, even if the wording was as you describe, that would lead to even more confusion. For instance, you could well argue that Heal Wounds affects multiple creatures, by allowing the healed creature to continue affecting other creatures when they would otherwise be dead. Eldritch Blast could be said to affect multiple creatures if it killed one, by forcing the rest to re-evaluate tactics, or by stopping that one from killing another. The vast majority of spells could be stopped from being twinned in that way.
I'll also add (on the dragon's breath thing) two additional things: The breath weapon's duration is keyed to the duration of the spell, and the damage of the breath weapon scales with spell level. That clearly ties the damage and targeting of the spell to the spell itself, really no different than any other traditional AoE with an extended duration.
If dragon's breath was an instantaneous duration spell that still granted a minute's use of the breath weapon, I could see an argument that the spell only truly targets one creature, because the spell would be over (per RAW) the moment it was cast and the AoE targets would then "not" be targets of the spell itself. It's not worded that way though.
When it comes to the Twinned DB argument, I would say that in D&D, the target of a spell is a clearly defined term, and shouldn't just be viewed in Plain English or similar. In terms of DB, it is only capable of targeting one creature. It may be able to affect multiple creatures through secondary means (the targeted creature using their dragon breath on other creatures), but it is not targeting them any more than a creature hit by the breath weapon of someone Polymorphed into a dragon is the target of the Polymorph spell.
Hmm, would you argue that the target of an attack with the shadow blade weapon or a holy weapon is a target of the shadow blade/holy weapon spell? I certainly wouldn't. Yea it's obviously a magical effect, but that is not really what we're discussing.
Telekineses is a little more interesting, but since the range of the spell is describing the range wihtin which you can affect objects, I'd say that they are being targeted by the spell, where as dragon's breath's ability targets entirely seperately from the spell being cast, and it's range has nothing to do with the spell's range.
The spellcasting rules for familiar are pretty clear that it's casting as if you are casting the spel.. That is not the case with dragon's breath.
I'll be honest I don't see why it'd cause problems with regards to anti-magic stuff.. It is still a magical effect caused by a spell.. It's just that being targeted by the abiliyt granted by the spell is not being targeted by the spell itself.. .Just as being targeted by the an attack with shadowblade weapon is not being targeted by the shadowblade spell.
Let me put it this way... If summon a shadow spawn and that shadow spawn attacks an enemy, surely the enemy is not being targeted by the summon shadowspawn spell.. It's being affected yes, but it's not being targted by the spell.
Most of these are moot to this conversation though...Twin spell specifically requires the spell to target one creature and not target self. Spirit Weapon and Holy Weapon don't target a creature with their casting (ineligible), Shadow Blade targets self (ineligible), telekinesis can target multiple creatures (just not at once) and objects, so it is ineligible per the JC ruling/SAC.
They're not moot to the conversation with regards what qualifies as being targeted by a spell, which is what the conversation is partly about. Shadowblade can obviously not be twinned, due to having a target of self, but the argument against dragon's breath relies on counting targets of someone using the effect of a spell, as being targets of the spell itself.
The fact that Dragon's breath has a range of touch and says it imbues a power indicates to me that the direct targeting and effect of the spell is to grant a power to a creature, the spell is not casting the breath weapon, the creature imbued with the power is using an ability.