“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.
The penalties for the third-casters start at level four, where you have no way to accomplish this, because every class gets an ASI at that level. Here, try it:
AT 4 is penalized; only AT ability is an ASI
EK 4 is penalized; only EK ability is an ASI
Artificer 4 is not penalized, gets an ASI
Wizard 4 is not penalized, gets an ASI
Bunch of explanatory text, below, but these are the most interesting levels to look at:
4,8,10,14,16, and 19 are the levels where EK/AT are nerfed by the rules but you will play hell trying to argue that this is warranted by an ability they get.
9, 15, and possibly 3 are the levels where EK/AT aren't nerfed at all and you will play hell trying to argue that these levels are just as powerful quitting points as on a Wizard, so the lack of a nerf is perfectly in line with all other progression.
Wizards get an ASI or Class ability every even level plus level 19. Artificers do it every every level except 13 and 17, but even levels are slightly more powerful, just because those are the levels where Artificers gain another spell prepared. The full list is below, but here are the levels where you're going to find it particularly challenging to back up your claim: 4, 8, and 16 (everyone's ability is an ASI), 10 (Wizard and EK both get subclass abilities, AT gets ASI, Artificer gets class ability), 14 (AT gets class ability, EK gets ASI, Wizard gets subclass ability, Artificer gets class ability), 19 (everyone gets an ASI, but Artificers don't get another spell prepared, which they did at 18 and will again at 20).
Bear in mind the second half of your implied claim also matters: since the penalties don't happen at AT/EK levels which are multiples of 3, the claim that this is all just good for balance means a claim that these levels are fine, it's the other levels that are problematic. The most significantly difficult levels here for claiming they're less powerful than the penalized levels are 9 and 15, where EKs and ATs get abilities just fine, but Wizards get nothing, followed by 3, where Wizards get an ability of deliberately marginal utility.
EK/AT, all penalty levels for reference: 4,5,7,8,10,11,13,14,16,17,19
EK/AT, penalty levels where Wizards get an ability to directly compete with whatever the EK/AT ability is: 4,8,10,14,16,19
EK/AT, penalty levels where Artificers get an ability to directly compete with whatever the EK/AT ability is: 4,5,7,8,10,11,14,16,19
EK/AT, penalty levels where Artificers get an ability to directly compete with whatever the EK/AT ability is but also have full preparation progression: 4,8,10,14,16
EK/AT non-penalty levels where Wizards and Artificers get abilities: 6, 12, 18
EK/AT non-penalty levels where Wizards don't get abilities: 9, 15; 3 used to be in this list, but Tasha's lets an L3 Wizard change a cantrip known every Long Rest. Not clear if you want to count this.
What you're going to find is that multiclass mixing isn't special for these classes, and specifically chosen power points for them don't look any more or less powerful than if you mixed other classes together (I completely left out mixing in other non-spellcasting classes, but remember Barbarian and Monk won't nerf progression at all, and Warlock not only won't nerf progression, the spell slots will play nice). As we add more and more classes to the mix, it becomes harder and harder to argue that the two penalized subclasses and two penalized classes really are the only two that warrant their specific penalties.
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.
My main issue here is that the ability is both tied to the spells duration, and the damage is tied to the spells level. It is very obvious that the magic of the cast spell extends to the breath weapon granted, because it both sustains the ability and dictates a changeable amount of damage based on the spells level.
But look at it another way. The casting target of fireball is a point within range. The target then generates an AoE that deals damage to creatures in the radius. Are the creatures targets of the spell? Is the point in space you chose? or is it both? The rules would say both are, which is one of two reasons why the spell can't be twinned (the other being the fact the initial target isn't a creature)
Now, tell me, at its basic level, is dragon's breath any different? the casting target is a creature in range (touch). that target then generates an AoE (breath weapon cone) that deals damage to creatures in the cone. To me, its the same basic sequence, so the same targeting rules apply, and the creatures caught in the cone are targets of the spell.
This is honestly just RAI vs RAW with the RAI crowd also wanting it to be RAW.
Not really. Some of JCs rulings are either RAI or RAMNS(Rules as Makes no Sense, such as the Book of Vile Darkness ruling).
Sorry, I meant specifically the Dragon's Breath bit, haha.
In my opinion, that is RAW. It's arguable, though, so it will be argued.
It's pretty much a textbook example of when RAW doesn't match RAI. We know why they INTENDED for it not to be Twinnable, and in the spirit of the rule (can't Twin AoE abilities) it makes sense. But as written it doesn't, and it's a real stretch (and twisting/misuse of the language) claiming it's RAW.
I call horse poopy. Damned spell doesn’t heal, it creates berries. The berries may heal, but the gorram spell don’t. 😠
I agree. The spells intent is to create food. A secondary effect is that it heals.The subclass ability specifies healing spells - spells intended to heal.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I call horse poopy. Damned spell doesn’t heal, it creates berries. The berries may heal, but the gorram spell don’t. 😠
I agree. The spells intent is to create food. A secondary effect is that it heals.The subclass ability specifies healing spells - spells intended to heal.
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.
My main issue here is that the ability is both tied to the spells duration, and the damage is tied to the spells level. It is very obvious that the magic of the cast spell extends to the breath weapon granted, because it both sustains the ability and dictates a changeable amount of damage based on the spells level.
But look at it another way. The casting target of fireball is a point within range. The target then generates an AoE that deals damage to creatures in the radius. Are the creatures targets of the spell? Is the point in space you chose? or is it both? The rules would say both are, which is one of two reasons why the spell can't be twinned (the other being the fact the initial target isn't a creature)
Now, tell me, at its basic level, is dragon's breath any different? the casting target is a creature in range (touch). that target then generates an AoE (breath weapon cone) that deals damage to creatures in the cone. To me, its the same basic sequence, so the same targeting rules apply, and the creatures caught in the cone are targets of the spell.
In terms of what qualifies as targeting, the same argument can be made for a lot of summoning spells and shadoblade however. Yes, the magic of the spell extends to the breath weapon as an effect of the spell, there is no doubt about it, but it is not the spell itself being used.. Just as using a breath weapon granted by polymorph is a direct effect of the polymorph spell, but it not the spell itself being used.
They are fundamentally different because the casting of fireball is targeting an area, and according to 5e rules, as such also targeting the creatures in that area, that is what happens when you cast the spell. The casting of dragon's breath is targeting a creature. It is not the same sequence because for the AoE damage to take effect, the creature on which the spell was cast must take an action that is seperate from the casting of the spell, to use a cause an effect that is different from using the spell.
The difference is between that of splashing a bucket of paint at a wall and giving the bucket to someone else to they can do it, both end up effecting the wall, but if you give the bucket to someone else, the action you took did not target the wall.
I'm actually perfectly okay with accepting secondary effects as direct targeting of the spell, but I think we should be consistent then, and as I view it, you cannot then twin haste or polymoph, as both have effects which can target more than 1 target during it's duration. It also means that any benefit that comes from targeting a creature with a spell, also triggers on things like flame blade, or summoning spells.
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.
My main issue here is that the ability is both tied to the spells duration, and the damage is tied to the spells level. It is very obvious that the magic of the cast spell extends to the breath weapon granted, because it both sustains the ability and dictates a changeable amount of damage based on the spells level.
But look at it another way. The casting target of fireball is a point within range. The target then generates an AoE that deals damage to creatures in the radius. Are the creatures targets of the spell? Is the point in space you chose? or is it both? The rules would say both are, which is one of two reasons why the spell can't be twinned (the other being the fact the initial target isn't a creature)
Now, tell me, at its basic level, is dragon's breath any different? the casting target is a creature in range (touch). that target then generates an AoE (breath weapon cone) that deals damage to creatures in the cone. To me, its the same basic sequence, so the same targeting rules apply, and the creatures caught in the cone are targets of the spell.
In terms of what qualifies as targeting, the same argument can be made for a lot of summoning spells and shadoblade however. Yes, the magic of the spell extends to the breath weapon as an effect of the spell, there is no doubt about it, but it is not the spell itself being used.. Just as using a breath weapon granted by polymorph is a direct effect of the polymorph spell, but it not the spell itself being used.
They are fundamentally different because the casting of fireball is targeting an area, and according to 5e rules, as such also targeting the creatures in that area, that is what happens when you cast the spell. The casting of dragon's breath is targeting a creature. It is not the same sequence because for the AoE damage to take effect, the creature on which the spell was cast must take an action that is seperate from the casting of the spell, to use a cause an effect that is different from using the spell.
The difference is between that of splashing a bucket of paint at a wall and giving the bucket to someone else to they can do it, both end up effecting the wall, but if you give the bucket to someone else, the action you took did not target the wall.
I'm actually perfectly okay with accepting secondary effects as direct targeting of the spell, but I think we should be consistent then, and as I view it, you cannot then twin haste or polymoph, as both have effects which can target more than 1 target during it's duration. It also means that any benefit that comes from targeting a creature with a spell, also triggers on things like flame blade, or summoning spells.
1) Does polymorph dictate the means or mechanics attacks (as in a + to hit and damage) made by the polymorphed creature? Does haste? Dragon's Breath does. If it is in the spell description, its an effect of the spell, and the creatures affected are targets of that effect.
2) Many spells have a duration beyond instantaneous, and just because a spell affects a creature on subsequent turns during its duration does not mean those creatures aren't targets. In your paint case, the spell is not the single action you take, whether to throw the paint or give it to another target, its "paint the wall" If during the painting of the wall, the wall is targeted, then the wall is a target of the "paint the wall" spell
The folks arguing for twinned dragon's breath just want to cheese their game with extra vieux lille.
They try to hide behind examples that don't fully match - polymorph, etc. The intent of polymorph is not to cause area or multi-target damage. The intent of dragon's breath IS to cause area damage. You cannot argue that it isn't. You can use it against a single target by choice but its purpose is to attack an area.
But hey, they just want what they want. Whine and cheese.
Not at all... I don't think I'll ever even attempt twinning dragon's breath.. What I'm looking for is to have a clear idea of how to consistenly apply the rules across all spells. You can argue intention of spell all you want, but that doesn't help us actually narrowing down how what really disqualifies a spell from being twinned.
The fact is that polymorph can give an ability that targets several creatures, which is very similar to what dragon's breath does. Not only that, but any spell that enables the buffed creature to affect another creature with the spell, is also targeting more than one creature by the logic applied to dragon's breath.
The reason eldritch blast is disqualified is because it can target more than 1 creature... So if we treat the targets of someone using the benefits of a spell as targets of the spell, then any beast with multi attack disqualifies polymorph, because multiattack can target more than 1 creature.... And that is even ignoring the fact that the spell has already targeted the polymorphed creature itself.
I think the only reason you view dragon's breath differently is because the idea of breathing fire is aesthetically closer to something like fireball than an animal mutli attacking or using some innate area effect, but both would disqualify the spell from being twinned.
1) Does polymorph dictate the means or mechanics attacks (as in a + to hit and damage) made by the polymorphed creature?
Well, yes. Polymorph lets the caster pick what creature the target gets polymorphed into, and thus pick what type of attacks it will get to make.
I believe you're referring to the caster of Dragon's Breath changing the stats of the cone attack by picking on of the four energy types and possibly upcasting the spell, but that isn't really different - the caster has to make that choice as they're casting the spell, they can't change that later on when the target makes an attack. Picking the polymorph form is no different.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Eh the difference I see between Polymorph and Dragon's Breath is that the damage and aoe of dragon's breath is explicitly spelled out in the spell itself, it is directly connected to the spell.
Meanwhile Polymorph says nothing of aoe or anything like that. The breath weapon there is not tied to the spell, but tied to the creature you pick which is not a part of the spell. It indirectly grants a breath weapon.
In other words, one mentions a breath weapon, while the other gives completely 0 mention of anything that could target more than 1 creature in the spell description itself.
Granted this interoperation is mine and may or may not be accurate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
If you don't mind I'll remove all the quote stuff, just to reduce size a lil bit.
1) If I am to understand you correctly, had polymorph listed every beast possible in the spell description rather than refering you to outside source material, you would agree that polymorph is disqualified for the same reasons dragon's breath is?
At that point are we then disqualifying spells based on how their convey their effects rather rather than their actual effects. That would mean that conjure elemental does not target the creatures attacked by the elemental, but summon elemental does because the stats of the elemental is contained in the spell?
Do you not think the fact that the beasts are not listed under polymorph is a result of them simply being unable to put that many options within the spell's description rather than a mechanical one?
That seems to me like an odd way of making that call. I hope you can see why I'd think that.
2) And that is were I simply disagree. The way I see it, the action is "give a bucket of paint".
Eh the difference I see between Polymorph and Dragon's Breath is that the damage and aoe of dragon's breath is explicitly spelled out in the spell itself, it is directly connected to the spell.
Meanwhile Polymorph says nothing of aoe or anything like that. The breath weapon there is not tied to the spell, but tied to the creature you pick which is not a part of the spell. It indirectly grants a breath weapon.
In other words, one mentions a breath weapon, while the other gives completely 0 mention of anything that could target more than 1 creature in the spell description itself.
Granted this interoperation is mine and may or may not be accurate.
Telekinesis can't be twinned because you can move more than one target with it - even if you can't move more than one at the same time. Also because you can target objects, but that's not relevant here.
So Telekinesis can't be twinned because it gives you an ability you can then attack more than one target with over time. Polymorph does something extremely similar, at least as far as I can tell. I don't think explicit mention of an AoE or something like that is what cinches it, unless that particular ruling about Telekinesis was incorrect anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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.
I might of agreed with you in a pre Tasha's world but after seeing the reason that Sorcerers didn't get any summoning spells was because "The magic feels complicated and not something a Sorcerer would do"
It kinda opens your eyes to a lot of the restrictions in 5e being based on feels and not actual balance. Look at stuff like capstones for another instance of no real balance, the sorcerer just gets an ability similar to a lvl 1 wizard as their capstone, an ability that's almost entirely trumped by an uncommon magic item.. That's not balance, just a "yeah that's something we could give em at lvl 20"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The penalties for the third-casters start at level four, where you have no way to accomplish this, because every class gets an ASI at that level. Here, try it:
AT 4 is penalized; only AT ability is an ASI
EK 4 is penalized; only EK ability is an ASI
Artificer 4 is not penalized, gets an ASI
Wizard 4 is not penalized, gets an ASI
Bunch of explanatory text, below, but these are the most interesting levels to look at:
4,8,10,14,16, and 19 are the levels where EK/AT are nerfed by the rules but you will play hell trying to argue that this is warranted by an ability they get.
9, 15, and possibly 3 are the levels where EK/AT aren't nerfed at all and you will play hell trying to argue that these levels are just as powerful quitting points as on a Wizard, so the lack of a nerf is perfectly in line with all other progression.
Wizards get an ASI or Class ability every even level plus level 19. Artificers do it every every level except 13 and 17, but even levels are slightly more powerful, just because those are the levels where Artificers gain another spell prepared. The full list is below, but here are the levels where you're going to find it particularly challenging to back up your claim: 4, 8, and 16 (everyone's ability is an ASI), 10 (Wizard and EK both get subclass abilities, AT gets ASI, Artificer gets class ability), 14 (AT gets class ability, EK gets ASI, Wizard gets subclass ability, Artificer gets class ability), 19 (everyone gets an ASI, but Artificers don't get another spell prepared, which they did at 18 and will again at 20).
Bear in mind the second half of your implied claim also matters: since the penalties don't happen at AT/EK levels which are multiples of 3, the claim that this is all just good for balance means a claim that these levels are fine, it's the other levels that are problematic. The most significantly difficult levels here for claiming they're less powerful than the penalized levels are 9 and 15, where EKs and ATs get abilities just fine, but Wizards get nothing, followed by 3, where Wizards get an ability of deliberately marginal utility.
What you're going to find is that multiclass mixing isn't special for these classes, and specifically chosen power points for them don't look any more or less powerful than if you mixed other classes together (I completely left out mixing in other non-spellcasting classes, but remember Barbarian and Monk won't nerf progression at all, and Warlock not only won't nerf progression, the spell slots will play nice). As we add more and more classes to the mix, it becomes harder and harder to argue that the two penalized subclasses and two penalized classes really are the only two that warrant their specific penalties.
My main issue here is that the ability is both tied to the spells duration, and the damage is tied to the spells level. It is very obvious that the magic of the cast spell extends to the breath weapon granted, because it both sustains the ability and dictates a changeable amount of damage based on the spells level.
But look at it another way. The casting target of fireball is a point within range. The target then generates an AoE that deals damage to creatures in the radius. Are the creatures targets of the spell? Is the point in space you chose? or is it both? The rules would say both are, which is one of two reasons why the spell can't be twinned (the other being the fact the initial target isn't a creature)
Now, tell me, at its basic level, is dragon's breath any different? the casting target is a creature in range (touch). that target then generates an AoE (breath weapon cone) that deals damage to creatures in the cone. To me, its the same basic sequence, so the same targeting rules apply, and the creatures caught in the cone are targets of the spell.
This is honestly just RAI vs RAW with the RAI crowd also wanting it to be RAW.
Not really. Some of JCs rulings are either RAI or RAMNS(Rules as Makes no Sense, such as the Book of Vile Darkness ruling).
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
Sorry, I meant specifically the Dragon's Breath bit, haha.
In my opinion, that is RAW. It's arguable, though, so it will be argued.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
I don’t know if it’s come up yet, but here’s one of my top votes:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA187
I call horse poopy. Damned spell doesn’t heal, it creates berries. The berries may heal, but the gorram spell don’t. 😠
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It's pretty much a textbook example of when RAW doesn't match RAI. We know why they INTENDED for it not to be Twinnable, and in the spirit of the rule (can't Twin AoE abilities) it makes sense. But as written it doesn't, and it's a real stretch (and twisting/misuse of the language) claiming it's RAW.
Which is why it's "arguable" and is argued.
I agree. The spells intent is to create food. A secondary effect is that it heals.The subclass ability specifies healing spells - spells intended to heal.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Word.
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
In terms of what qualifies as targeting, the same argument can be made for a lot of summoning spells and shadoblade however. Yes, the magic of the spell extends to the breath weapon as an effect of the spell, there is no doubt about it, but it is not the spell itself being used.. Just as using a breath weapon granted by polymorph is a direct effect of the polymorph spell, but it not the spell itself being used.
They are fundamentally different because the casting of fireball is targeting an area, and according to 5e rules, as such also targeting the creatures in that area, that is what happens when you cast the spell. The casting of dragon's breath is targeting a creature. It is not the same sequence because for the AoE damage to take effect, the creature on which the spell was cast must take an action that is seperate from the casting of the spell, to use a cause an effect that is different from using the spell.
The difference is between that of splashing a bucket of paint at a wall and giving the bucket to someone else to they can do it, both end up effecting the wall, but if you give the bucket to someone else, the action you took did not target the wall.
I'm actually perfectly okay with accepting secondary effects as direct targeting of the spell, but I think we should be consistent then, and as I view it, you cannot then twin haste or polymoph, as both have effects which can target more than 1 target during it's duration. It also means that any benefit that comes from targeting a creature with a spell, also triggers on things like flame blade, or summoning spells.
Eh, I don't even allow it in my game, but I can still see the argument that RAW should allow it.
Well, that's an ignorant statement in an otherwise adult discussion on rules.
1) Does polymorph dictate the means or mechanics attacks (as in a + to hit and damage) made by the polymorphed creature? Does haste? Dragon's Breath does. If it is in the spell description, its an effect of the spell, and the creatures affected are targets of that effect.
2) Many spells have a duration beyond instantaneous, and just because a spell affects a creature on subsequent turns during its duration does not mean those creatures aren't targets. In your paint case, the spell is not the single action you take, whether to throw the paint or give it to another target, its "paint the wall" If during the painting of the wall, the wall is targeted, then the wall is a target of the "paint the wall" spell
Not at all... I don't think I'll ever even attempt twinning dragon's breath.. What I'm looking for is to have a clear idea of how to consistenly apply the rules across all spells. You can argue intention of spell all you want, but that doesn't help us actually narrowing down how what really disqualifies a spell from being twinned.
The fact is that polymorph can give an ability that targets several creatures, which is very similar to what dragon's breath does. Not only that, but any spell that enables the buffed creature to affect another creature with the spell, is also targeting more than one creature by the logic applied to dragon's breath.
The reason eldritch blast is disqualified is because it can target more than 1 creature... So if we treat the targets of someone using the benefits of a spell as targets of the spell, then any beast with multi attack disqualifies polymorph, because multiattack can target more than 1 creature.... And that is even ignoring the fact that the spell has already targeted the polymorphed creature itself.
I think the only reason you view dragon's breath differently is because the idea of breathing fire is aesthetically closer to something like fireball than an animal mutli attacking or using some innate area effect, but both would disqualify the spell from being twinned.
Well, yes. Polymorph lets the caster pick what creature the target gets polymorphed into, and thus pick what type of attacks it will get to make.
I believe you're referring to the caster of Dragon's Breath changing the stats of the cone attack by picking on of the four energy types and possibly upcasting the spell, but that isn't really different - the caster has to make that choice as they're casting the spell, they can't change that later on when the target makes an attack. Picking the polymorph form is no different.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Eh the difference I see between Polymorph and Dragon's Breath is that the damage and aoe of dragon's breath is explicitly spelled out in the spell itself, it is directly connected to the spell.
Meanwhile Polymorph says nothing of aoe or anything like that. The breath weapon there is not tied to the spell, but tied to the creature you pick which is not a part of the spell. It indirectly grants a breath weapon.
In other words, one mentions a breath weapon, while the other gives completely 0 mention of anything that could target more than 1 creature in the spell description itself.
Granted this interoperation is mine and may or may not be accurate.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
If you don't mind I'll remove all the quote stuff, just to reduce size a lil bit.
1) If I am to understand you correctly, had polymorph listed every beast possible in the spell description rather than refering you to outside source material, you would agree that polymorph is disqualified for the same reasons dragon's breath is?
At that point are we then disqualifying spells based on how their convey their effects rather rather than their actual effects. That would mean that conjure elemental does not target the creatures attacked by the elemental, but summon elemental does because the stats of the elemental is contained in the spell?
Do you not think the fact that the beasts are not listed under polymorph is a result of them simply being unable to put that many options within the spell's description rather than a mechanical one?
That seems to me like an odd way of making that call. I hope you can see why I'd think that.
2) And that is were I simply disagree. The way I see it, the action is "give a bucket of paint".
Telekinesis can't be twinned because you can move more than one target with it - even if you can't move more than one at the same time. Also because you can target objects, but that's not relevant here.
So Telekinesis can't be twinned because it gives you an ability you can then attack more than one target with over time. Polymorph does something extremely similar, at least as far as I can tell. I don't think explicit mention of an AoE or something like that is what cinches it, unless that particular ruling about Telekinesis was incorrect anyway.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I might of agreed with you in a pre Tasha's world but after seeing the reason that Sorcerers didn't get any summoning spells was because "The magic feels complicated and not something a Sorcerer would do"
It kinda opens your eyes to a lot of the restrictions in 5e being based on feels and not actual balance. Look at stuff like capstones for another instance of no real balance, the sorcerer just gets an ability similar to a lvl 1 wizard as their capstone, an ability that's almost entirely trumped by an uncommon magic item.. That's not balance, just a "yeah that's something we could give em at lvl 20"