The folks arguing for twinned dragon's breath just want to cheese their game with extra vieux lille.
Well, that's an ignorant statement in an otherwise adult discussion on rules.
Not at all. If it weren't cheese, they wouldn't fight so hard for it. Every other instance of a spell that does area damage or can affect multiple target is not allowed. Because of a particular wording, they demand the legality of it. I understand rules lawyering and picking apart a rule word by word. But the intent of twinning is obvious, and the only thing ignorant is somebody insisting that a spell that does an aoe is ok to twin because they want it that way.
Play it how you want.
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?"
The folks arguing for twinned dragon's breath just want to cheese their game with extra vieux lille.
Well, that's an ignorant statement in an otherwise adult discussion on rules.
Not at all. If it weren't cheese, they wouldn't fight so hard for it. Every other instance of a spell that does area damage or can affect multiple target is not allowed. Because of a particular wording, they demand the legality of it. I understand rules lawyering and picking apart a rule word by word. But the intent of twinning is obvious, and the only thing ignorant is somebody insisting that a spell that does an aoe is ok to twin because they want it that way.
Play it how you want.
I really disagree, on several fronts.
I would interpret this rule one of 2 ways: You either take the defined meaning of Target in D&D for spells, in which case DB is allowed to be twinned (as DB can only target one creature, but that creature can then use the ability it grants to target others), or you take it to include any effect which comes directly from the spell, which would disallow DB, but would also disallow Polymorph. The two spells both transform the target, giving them access to abilities which they would not otherwise have and which can affect multiple creatures. Both or neither are allowed.
As a DM, I'd most likely rule the first way, as I believe that to be RAW, of a reasonable level of power, and more fun.
Not at all. If it weren't cheese, they wouldn't fight so hard for it. Every other instance of a spell that does area damage or can affect multiple target is not allowed. Because of a particular wording, they demand the legality of it. I understand rules lawyering and picking apart a rule word by word. But the intent of twinning is obvious, and the only thing ignorant is somebody insisting that a spell that does an aoe is ok to twin because they want it that way.
Play it how you want.
As has been pointed out in this thread multiple times, you can twin Polymorph to achieve a similar effect. There are many spells capable of affecting multiple targets that are legally twinnable, and your claim is incorrect.
I think the RAW could be improved upon by banning sorcerers from twinning spells where any eventual consequence involves multiple targets resisting the caster's save DC or being attacked by the caster's spell attack roll, as that would provide the apparently intended dividing line between Dragon's Breath and spells like Polymorph. But no such errata has been issued.
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.
...that... doesn't change anything about my ruling at all? Telekinesis adds a very specific rule that disallows it from Twinned metamagic stating very clearly that "You can affect the same target round after round, or choose a new one at any time", new one in this context meaning new target. They add a specific rule inside of Telekinesis that it can target several creatures (just in different rounds), while Polymorph has no such specific rule.
Polymorph only lets you target a single creature, you can't like, polymorph the fighter then change to polymorph the barbarian in a different round without recasting the spell.
Yeah I'm probably missing something, feel free to provide more explanation.
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.
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.
...that... doesn't change anything about my ruling at all? Telekinesis adds a very specific rule that disallows it from Twinned metamagic stating very clearly that "You can affect the same target round after round, or choose a new one at any time", new one in this context meaning new target. They add a specific rule inside of Telekinesis that it can target several creatures (just in different rounds), while Polymorph has no such specific rule.
Polymorph only lets you target a single creature, you can't like, polymorph the fighter then change to polymorph the barbarian in a different round without recasting the spell.
Yeah I'm probably missing something, feel free to provide more explanation.
The target of Polymorph can affect multiple targets of its own, for instance a halfling being Polymorphed into a Tyrannosaurus Rex can use its multiattack on two targets.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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".
1) Only if their attacks were specifically listed and the targets of those attacks specifically named. Polymorph's description neither defines the specific creatures, defines their attacks, nor identifies the targets of those attacks (at all). It is implied by the spell that the creatures can attack and can target other creatures (and objects, btw) but is not written into the spell so is not RAW that those creatures/objects are "targets".
Conversely , DB defines the creature (the one granted the ability), defines the attack (AoE cone with damage and mods), and identifies the targets of that attack (creatures in the cone), all in the spell description. It is 100% reaching to try and say that Polymorph defines the targets of the transmogrified creatures attack in any way the same as how DB does it. Polymorph doesn't target creatures attacked by the beast because it doesn't identify them at all in the spell description, targets or otherwise. DB does, using the language used throughout the rules to describe the targets and effects of AoE spells.
Targeting is not super well defined in 5e. Various spells call creatures in AoEs "targets" (Fireball) or just identifies them as "creatures" (most other AoE spells, including DB). the targeting rules themselves don't specifically call the creatures in an AoE "targets", but the rules for AoE's bypassing cover do (see below, bold and underlined for emphasis)
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. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.
The general consensus is that creatures inside the AoE of a spell and subject to its effects are targets, supported by several rulings and other references. But, if you want to continue to infer things not written, consider this: If the action to grant the initial target the ability and that creature using said ability on other creatures are "separate" enough for the creatures to not be considered targets of the spell (despite all of these creatures being identified in the spell description), then consider the "target" of the second action, based on how it works compared to other cone spells. What is the cone targeted on? Its the "self" of the creature activating it.
Regarding the elementals: 1) you are again arguing using an example that is unable to be twinned for other reasons. If you want to continue a general discussion on spell targeting, that is fine (in another thread), but the topic under discussion is whether these spells are able to be twinned, so examples that can't be twinned for other reasons aren't super useful to the discussion.
The folks arguing for twinned dragon's breath just want to cheese their game with extra vieux lille.
Well, that's an ignorant statement in an otherwise adult discussion on rules.
Not at all. If it weren't cheese, they wouldn't fight so hard for it. Every other instance of a spell that does area damage or can affect multiple target is not allowed. Because of a particular wording, they demand the legality of it. I understand rules lawyering and picking apart a rule word by word. But the intent of twinning is obvious, and the only thing ignorant is somebody insisting that a spell that does an aoe is ok to twin because they want it that way.
Play it how you want.
No, it's just a childish, ignorant, and belittling comment. It doesn't belong in this thread.
The folks arguing for twinned dragon's breath just want to cheese their game with extra vieux lille.
Well, that's an ignorant statement in an otherwise adult discussion on rules.
Not at all. If it weren't cheese, they wouldn't fight so hard for it. Every other instance of a spell that does area damage or can affect multiple target is not allowed. Because of a particular wording, they demand the legality of it. I understand rules lawyering and picking apart a rule word by word. But the intent of twinning is obvious, and the only thing ignorant is somebody insisting that a spell that does an aoe is ok to twin because they want it that way.
Play it how you want.
No, it's just a childish, ignorant, and belittling comment. It doesn't belong in this thread.
Then explain why it is necessary to have twinned DB.
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?"
The folks arguing for twinned dragon's breath just want to cheese their game with extra vieux lille.
Well, that's an ignorant statement in an otherwise adult discussion on rules.
Not at all. If it weren't cheese, they wouldn't fight so hard for it. Every other instance of a spell that does area damage or can affect multiple target is not allowed. Because of a particular wording, they demand the legality of it. I understand rules lawyering and picking apart a rule word by word. But the intent of twinning is obvious, and the only thing ignorant is somebody insisting that a spell that does an aoe is ok to twin because they want it that way.
Play it how you want.
No, it's just a childish, ignorant, and belittling comment. It doesn't belong in this thread.
Then explain why it is necessary to have twinned DB.
It's not "necessary" to have anything in the game. It's also not necessary to belittle other people in an attempt to win an argument on the internet.
People here are discussing the wording of the rule, that's it. Not the intent. Some people enjoy the semantics of it, who cares?
The folks arguing for twinned dragon's breath just want to cheese their game with extra vieux lille.
Well, that's an ignorant statement in an otherwise adult discussion on rules.
Not at all. If it weren't cheese, they wouldn't fight so hard for it. Every other instance of a spell that does area damage or can affect multiple target is not allowed. Because of a particular wording, they demand the legality of it. I understand rules lawyering and picking apart a rule word by word. But the intent of twinning is obvious, and the only thing ignorant is somebody insisting that a spell that does an aoe is ok to twin because they want it that way.
Play it how you want.
No, it's just a childish, ignorant, and belittling comment. It doesn't belong in this thread.
Then explain why it is necessary to have twinned DB.
Firstly, why should it be explained why it is necessary? The written rules, at least in one perfectly valid and logical interpretation, support being able to do so. It is not necessary for a hand axe to do 1d6+STR damage on a hit, but it is what the rules say it does.
Second, the comment you quoted was not about whether DB should be able to be twinned, rather about your response to those who feel the rules support twinning it. You have belittled and put down people with a perfectly valid view of the rules by calling their interpretation cheese. That is what is being called "childish, ignorant and belittling". It has nothing at all to do with whether DB should be twinned, just your attitude towards those with a different opinion to your own.
Deciding that there needed to be someone to do what he does. Sage Advice should be 'DM decides' end of story.
I don't like how he ends his statements with basically "I have spoken" I'm the DM at my table, not him, and his opinions are cute and all, but unless he's running a game I'm in, his opinions are worthless to me.
The folks arguing for twinned dragon's breath just want to cheese their game with extra vieux lille.
Well, that's an ignorant statement in an otherwise adult discussion on rules.
Not at all. If it weren't cheese, they wouldn't fight so hard for it. Every other instance of a spell that does area damage or can affect multiple target is not allowed. Because of a particular wording, they demand the legality of it. I understand rules lawyering and picking apart a rule word by word. But the intent of twinning is obvious, and the only thing ignorant is somebody insisting that a spell that does an aoe is ok to twin because they want it that way.
Play it how you want.
No, it's just a childish, ignorant, and belittling comment. It doesn't belong in this thread.
Then explain why it is necessary to have twinned DB.
Any accusation of 'cheese' is pretty much a whiny control freak moaning. If you don't like characters to have powers, play 'Offices and Obligations' about normal office workers doing boring stuff and quit fantasy related hobbies entirely. We don't need you.
What he OUGHT to be doing is shutting his mouth and not spreading his opinions like they matter any more than anyone else's. It matters not a whit that he's the lead writer or whatever. Crawford's 'Sage Advice' thing is a cancer and he needs to stfu. Frankly, I'd say it's past time for someone else to take his place entirely. Let him go do something else with another game line.
The folks arguing for twinned dragon's breath just want to cheese their game with extra vieux lille.
Well, that's an ignorant statement in an otherwise adult discussion on rules.
Not at all. If it weren't cheese, they wouldn't fight so hard for it. Every other instance of a spell that does area damage or can affect multiple target is not allowed. Because of a particular wording, they demand the legality of it. I understand rules lawyering and picking apart a rule word by word. But the intent of twinning is obvious, and the only thing ignorant is somebody insisting that a spell that does an aoe is ok to twin because they want it that way.
Play it how you want.
No, it's just a childish, ignorant, and belittling comment. It doesn't belong in this thread.
Then explain why it is necessary to have twinned DB.
Any accusation of 'cheese' is pretty much a whiny control freak moaning. If you don't like characters to have powers, play 'Offices and Obligations' about normal office workers doing boring stuff and quit fantasy related hobbies entirely. We don't need you.
What you call Whiny control freak moaning is what a lot of other people call DM-ing. Forbidding a potentially overpowered or unbalanced combo is a perfectly valid DM move, and the SAC and SA is written for DMs as a guide to how the game designers intended certain game mechanics to work, so as to help them make a ruling on the fly in a game. You may not like it, but as a player you are welcome to find a new table with a more accommodating DM if not being able to twin Dragons Breath (or any other ruling) is such a dealbreaker for you, and as a DM you are free to ignore individual rulings in the SAC or discard them entirely.
honestly that last sentence could be the answer to any and all the complaints raised on this thread
What you call Whiny control freak moaning is what a lot of other people call DM-ing.
What you're missing is that this isn't a DMing situation, it's a discussion about rules as written. It is perfectly coherent to recognize that the rules as written really should allow a specific combination, and to still not actually permit it in a game.
What you call Whiny control freak moaning is what a lot of other people call DM-ing.
What you're missing is that this isn't a DMing situation, it's a discussion about rules as written. It is perfectly coherent to recognize that the rules as written really should allow a specific combination, and to still not actually permit it in a game.
a RAW discussion ultimately has to involve some consideration of DM-ing, especially with Twinned spell, where the DM's role is directly stated in the applicable SAC ruling:
Can my sorcerer use Twinned Spell to affect a particular spell?
is incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level
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 has a range of self.
The spell can target an object.
The spell allows you to choose more than one creature to be affected by it, particularly at the level you’re casting the spell. Some spells increase their number of potential targets when you cast them at a higher level.
The spell can force more than one creature to make a saving throw before the spell’s duration expires.
The spell lets you make a roll of any kind that can affect more than one creature before the spell’s duration expires
. Otherwise its an academic exercise that is useless for how we play the game (no offense to academics everywhere). And ultimately I do agree that the wording of DB is ambiguous enough to cause the need for a ruling. But players shouldn't think that their interpretation trumps their DMs, and a DM absolutely has the right to say "that's unbalanced/broken/cheese/etc" and forbid it. Though for the record, I would choose better words than "cheese" to describe the issue.
The folks arguing for twinned dragon's breath just want to cheese their game with extra vieux lille.
Well, that's an ignorant statement in an otherwise adult discussion on rules.
Not at all. If it weren't cheese, they wouldn't fight so hard for it. Every other instance of a spell that does area damage or can affect multiple target is not allowed. Because of a particular wording, they demand the legality of it. I understand rules lawyering and picking apart a rule word by word. But the intent of twinning is obvious, and the only thing ignorant is somebody insisting that a spell that does an aoe is ok to twin because they want it that way.
Play it how you want.
No, it's just a childish, ignorant, and belittling comment. It doesn't belong in this thread.
Then explain why it is necessary to have twinned DB.
It's not "necessary" to have anything in the game. It's also not necessary to belittle other people in an attempt to win an argument on the internet.
People here are discussing the wording of the rule, that's it. Not the intent. Some people enjoy the semantics of it, who cares?
And yet, none of the responses to my question validate it. You feel it is necessary to twin DB but can't or won't explain why. If it doesn't matter at all then what are you fighting for? If you're a GM, it doesn't matter what anybody says, you rule how you will. If you're a player, then you're arguing to use something that has already been shot down by a designer of 5e. You are arguing for approval yet cannot or will not state why it is necessary to twin DB.
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?"
Not at all. If it weren't cheese, they wouldn't fight so hard for it. Every other instance of a spell that does area damage or can affect multiple target is not allowed. Because of a particular wording, they demand the legality of it. I understand rules lawyering and picking apart a rule word by word. But the intent of twinning is obvious, and the only thing ignorant is somebody insisting that a spell that does an aoe is ok to twin because they want it that way.
Play it how you want.
"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
I really disagree, on several fronts.
I would interpret this rule one of 2 ways: You either take the defined meaning of Target in D&D for spells, in which case DB is allowed to be twinned (as DB can only target one creature, but that creature can then use the ability it grants to target others), or you take it to include any effect which comes directly from the spell, which would disallow DB, but would also disallow Polymorph. The two spells both transform the target, giving them access to abilities which they would not otherwise have and which can affect multiple creatures. Both or neither are allowed.
As a DM, I'd most likely rule the first way, as I believe that to be RAW, of a reasonable level of power, and more fun.
"You can disagree but not TOO vigorously or else you are a powergamer/munchkin/cheese enthusiast"
It's not the first time I've seen similar argument on these forums.
I guess I am one of those rare cheese enthusiasts who cheese for their players without them even knowing or asking about it :)
As has been pointed out in this thread multiple times, you can twin Polymorph to achieve a similar effect. There are many spells capable of affecting multiple targets that are legally twinnable, and your claim is incorrect.
I think the RAW could be improved upon by banning sorcerers from twinning spells where any eventual consequence involves multiple targets resisting the caster's save DC or being attacked by the caster's spell attack roll, as that would provide the apparently intended dividing line between Dragon's Breath and spells like Polymorph. But no such errata has been issued.
...that... doesn't change anything about my ruling at all? Telekinesis adds a very specific rule that disallows it from Twinned metamagic stating very clearly that "You can affect the same target round after round, or choose a new one at any time", new one in this context meaning new target. They add a specific rule inside of Telekinesis that it can target several creatures (just in different rounds), while Polymorph has no such specific rule.
Polymorph only lets you target a single creature, you can't like, polymorph the fighter then change to polymorph the barbarian in a different round without recasting the spell.
Yeah I'm probably missing something, feel free to provide more explanation.
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.
The target of Polymorph can affect multiple targets of its own, for instance a halfling being Polymorphed into a Tyrannosaurus Rex can use its multiattack on two targets.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
And I already addressed that point in my previous post?
Edit: To which your reply was to bring up Telekinesis for some reason I still don't understand?
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.
1) Only if their attacks were specifically listed and the targets of those attacks specifically named. Polymorph's description neither defines the specific creatures, defines their attacks, nor identifies the targets of those attacks (at all). It is implied by the spell that the creatures can attack and can target other creatures (and objects, btw) but is not written into the spell so is not RAW that those creatures/objects are "targets".
Conversely , DB defines the creature (the one granted the ability), defines the attack (AoE cone with damage and mods), and identifies the targets of that attack (creatures in the cone), all in the spell description. It is 100% reaching to try and say that Polymorph defines the targets of the transmogrified creatures attack in any way the same as how DB does it. Polymorph doesn't target creatures attacked by the beast because it doesn't identify them at all in the spell description, targets or otherwise. DB does, using the language used throughout the rules to describe the targets and effects of AoE spells.
Targeting is not super well defined in 5e. Various spells call creatures in AoEs "targets" (Fireball) or just identifies them as "creatures" (most other AoE spells, including DB). the targeting rules themselves don't specifically call the creatures in an AoE "targets", but the rules for AoE's bypassing cover do (see below, bold and underlined for emphasis)
The general consensus is that creatures inside the AoE of a spell and subject to its effects are targets, supported by several rulings and other references. But, if you want to continue to infer things not written, consider this: If the action to grant the initial target the ability and that creature using said ability on other creatures are "separate" enough for the creatures to not be considered targets of the spell (despite all of these creatures being identified in the spell description), then consider the "target" of the second action, based on how it works compared to other cone spells. What is the cone targeted on? Its the "self" of the creature activating it.
Regarding the elementals: 1) you are again arguing using an example that is unable to be twinned for other reasons. If you want to continue a general discussion on spell targeting, that is fine (in another thread), but the topic under discussion is whether these spells are able to be twinned, so examples that can't be twinned for other reasons aren't super useful to the discussion.
No, it's just a childish, ignorant, and belittling comment. It doesn't belong in this thread.
Then explain why it is necessary to have twinned DB.
"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
It's not "necessary" to have anything in the game. It's also not necessary to belittle other people in an attempt to win an argument on the internet.
People here are discussing the wording of the rule, that's it. Not the intent. Some people enjoy the semantics of it, who cares?
Firstly, why should it be explained why it is necessary? The written rules, at least in one perfectly valid and logical interpretation, support being able to do so. It is not necessary for a hand axe to do 1d6+STR damage on a hit, but it is what the rules say it does.
Second, the comment you quoted was not about whether DB should be able to be twinned, rather about your response to those who feel the rules support twinning it. You have belittled and put down people with a perfectly valid view of the rules by calling their interpretation cheese. That is what is being called "childish, ignorant and belittling". It has nothing at all to do with whether DB should be twinned, just your attitude towards those with a different opinion to your own.
Deciding that there needed to be someone to do what he does. Sage Advice should be 'DM decides' end of story.
I don't like how he ends his statements with basically "I have spoken" I'm the DM at my table, not him, and his opinions are cute and all, but unless he's running a game I'm in, his opinions are worthless to me.
Any accusation of 'cheese' is pretty much a whiny control freak moaning. If you don't like characters to have powers, play 'Offices and Obligations' about normal office workers doing boring stuff and quit fantasy related hobbies entirely. We don't need you.
Yep that's the point.
What he OUGHT to be doing is shutting his mouth and not spreading his opinions like they matter any more than anyone else's. It matters not a whit that he's the lead writer or whatever. Crawford's 'Sage Advice' thing is a cancer and he needs to stfu. Frankly, I'd say it's past time for someone else to take his place entirely. Let him go do something else with another game line.
What you call Whiny control freak moaning is what a lot of other people call DM-ing. Forbidding a potentially overpowered or unbalanced combo is a perfectly valid DM move, and the SAC and SA is written for DMs as a guide to how the game designers intended certain game mechanics to work, so as to help them make a ruling on the fly in a game. You may not like it, but as a player you are welcome to find a new table with a more accommodating DM if not being able to twin Dragons Breath (or any other ruling) is such a dealbreaker for you, and as a DM you are free to ignore individual rulings in the SAC or discard them entirely.
honestly that last sentence could be the answer to any and all the complaints raised on this thread
What you're missing is that this isn't a DMing situation, it's a discussion about rules as written. It is perfectly coherent to recognize that the rules as written really should allow a specific combination, and to still not actually permit it in a game.
a RAW discussion ultimately has to involve some consideration of DM-ing, especially with Twinned spell, where the DM's role is directly stated in the applicable SAC ruling:
. Otherwise its an academic exercise that is useless for how we play the game (no offense to academics everywhere). And ultimately I do agree that the wording of DB is ambiguous enough to cause the need for a ruling. But players shouldn't think that their interpretation trumps their DMs, and a DM absolutely has the right to say "that's unbalanced/broken/cheese/etc" and forbid it. Though for the record, I would choose better words than "cheese" to describe the issue.
And yet, none of the responses to my question validate it. You feel it is necessary to twin DB but can't or won't explain why. If it doesn't matter at all then what are you fighting for? If you're a GM, it doesn't matter what anybody says, you rule how you will. If you're a player, then you're arguing to use something that has already been shot down by a designer of 5e. You are arguing for approval yet cannot or will not state why it is necessary to twin DB.
"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
Can we get back on topic!
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.