Jaeken, that is the issue, can Ice Knife target only 1, or multiple creatures?
Setting aside that, technically, spells cannot target at all (except for living spells) because to target requires choice, Ice Knife explicitly says "the target and each creature within 5 feet". So by the wording of the spell itself it only targets 1 creature and is thus eligible for Twinned Spell.
The problem is that while the SAC says otherwise, the spell has never been revised to fit the Twinned Spell SAC entry, and the word target has never been defined in 5e, nor has any effort been put forward to ensuring that it only has 1 meaning to avoid confusion and errors.
Put simply, you can Twin Ice Knife according to RAW. You cannot Twin it according to SAC. You cannot Twin it according to Crawford (at least until/unless he says otherwise in Sage Advice).
From Targets, Ch. 10, PHB: "A spell’s description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below)." So RAW, spells can in fact target. I agree it's wierd that the spell targets, rather than just the caster targeting, but it is what it is.
SAC is official, so it is not possible for something to be RAW legal but not SAC legal. I agree that Crawford's tweets leave a lot of room for improvement, and it's likely that's why his tweets are no longer official.
Given the wording in Fireball, it looks like the Noun 2. B. definition from Roscoe's post, or something similar, is what 5E uses. Otherwise, if you cast Fireball the point of origin takes 8d6 fire damage, and then all creatures within 20' of that make a save or else... nothing happens regardless of them passing or failing the save.
I'm going to throw this out I could totally be off base on your comment. In the updated Twinned spells entry of SAC there is the following paragraph.
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:
To me, this paragraph screams RAI, and not RAW, which if they wanted this entry to be fully RAW that paragraph would not have existed.
The more this discussion goes on the more I'm understanding the spell as the scenario if the creatures are bunched together then the impact is that the AOE is larger when it selects two targets but each creature makes one save and takes one damage on the failed to save even if the two targets AOE overlaps each other. (I think I got that correct)
Let me see if I have this next scenario correct. (It should be an easy and obvious one but I like to talk/type things out to make sure.
Setup:
Two groups of creatures are 20 feet apart.
[1][2][3] [4][5][6] [7] [8]
The sorcerer Twinned spell Ice Knife and targets [2] and [5] where all creatures in the separate AOE range are affected. In this case, the casted Ice Knife works are normally as two 'separate' (I know what the entry is on the sorcerer page reads. Two but one.) spells were cast.
Do I have that right?
no its the same spell. if you cast a single target concentration spell its still the same concentration. Technically you cover more squares of possible damage by separating it.
But again if you take the stance that ice knife is twin-able, you are actively ignoring JC's statement that it isn't. If you want to homebrew it fine.
I'm following what SAC is saying but I'm trying to understand the WHY and using scenarios helps me illustrate my understanding because if I cannot explain to my players the problem I'm not going to get their buy-in that I'm following a rule and not just saying NO cause JC said so.
We do have a definition of target.......... its in the dictionary
First of all, that is a dictionary definition not the rules. As I said, the rules have no independent definition for the word target.
Noun 1. C. : something or someone fired at or marked for attack
Noun 2. B. something or someone to be affected by an action or development
Ice Knife is clearly written such that Noun 1 is the definition in use, making definition Noun 2 irrelevant to (at least) this situation.
Verb 2 is a referential definition, requiring you to define what a target is first, since a verb is an action. Yet you choose to only reference Noun 2, when Verb 2 could use either Noun definition.
In the end, we have an explicitly clear statement within Ice Knife, where it uses the word 'target' (singular form) in reference to 1 creature. Any attempt at declaring Ice Knife to target multiple creatures requires ignoring the explicit text, and that the SAC entry on Twinned Spell is itself faulty (for including Dragon's Breath & Ice Knife as ineligible).
But it isn't the usage of "target" in the Ice Knife spell description that is key here - its the usage of "target" in Twinned Spell.
The question is; does twinned spell only work for spells that you choose to point at one creature, or does it only work for spells that are only able to affect one creature? Sage Advice has established that it is the second meaning of "target" (i.e. to affect) that is relevant for Twinned Spell eligibility.
Here's two of the intelligibility reasons they give:
"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"
The fact that the ice knife spell description uses the word "target" in the singular does not override the fact that the spell is able to affect multiple targets with its saving through and damage effects.
Yeah, it was these two lines in the SAC that got me thinking more of the issues of Ice Knife with a Twinned spell (before I knew it was already an issue) but all that text is buried under an RAI text which does not necessarily make it RAW.
Jaeken, that is the issue, can Ice Knife target only 1, or multiple creatures?
Setting aside that, technically, spells cannot target at all (except for living spells) because to target requires choice, Ice Knife explicitly says "the target and each creature within 5 feet". So by the wording of the spell itself it only targets 1 creature and is thus eligible for Twinned Spell.
The problem is that while the SAC says otherwise, the spell has never been revised to fit the Twinned Spell SAC entry, and the word target has never been defined in 5e, nor has any effort been put forward to ensuring that it only has 1 meaning to avoid confusion and errors.
Put simply, you can Twin Ice Knife according to RAW. You cannot Twin it according to SAC. You cannot Twin it according to Crawford (at least until/unless he says otherwise in Sage Advice).
From Targets, Ch. 10, PHB: "A spell’s description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below)." So RAW, spells can in fact target. I agree it's wierd that the spell targets, rather than just the caster targeting, but it is what it is.
SAC is official, so it is not possible for something to be RAW legal but not SAC legal. I agree that Crawford's tweets leave a lot of room for improvement, and it's likely that's why his tweets are no longer official.
Given the wording in Fireball, it looks like the Noun 2. B. definition from Roscoe's post, or something similar, is what 5E uses. Otherwise, if you cast Fireball the point of origin takes 8d6 fire damage, and then all creatures within 20' of that make a save or else... nothing happens regardless of them passing or failing the save.
I'm going to throw this out I could totally be off base on your comment. In the updated Twinned spells entry of SAC there is the following paragraph.
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:
To me, this paragraph screams RAI, and not RAW, which if they wanted this entry to be fully RAW that paragraph would not have existed.
Yes, where it is explicitly called out as intent, it is intent. The rest is, per the WotC website, "The Sage Advice Compendium is the official D&D rules FAQ, gathering D&D rules questions and providing answers to them." Agreed, the list at the end is RAI not RAW.
Jaeken, that is the issue, can Ice Knife target only 1, or multiple creatures?
Setting aside that, technically, spells cannot target at all (except for living spells) because to target requires choice, Ice Knife explicitly says "the target and each creature within 5 feet". So by the wording of the spell itself it only targets 1 creature and is thus eligible for Twinned Spell.
The problem is that while the SAC says otherwise, the spell has never been revised to fit the Twinned Spell SAC entry, and the word target has never been defined in 5e, nor has any effort been put forward to ensuring that it only has 1 meaning to avoid confusion and errors.
Put simply, you can Twin Ice Knife according to RAW. You cannot Twin it according to SAC. You cannot Twin it according to Crawford (at least until/unless he says otherwise in Sage Advice).
From Targets, Ch. 10, PHB: "A spell’s description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below)." So RAW, spells can in fact target. I agree it's wierd that the spell targets, rather than just the caster targeting, but it is what it is.
SAC is official, so it is not possible for something to be RAW legal but not SAC legal. I agree that Crawford's tweets leave a lot of room for improvement, and it's likely that's why his tweets are no longer official.
Given the wording in Fireball, it looks like the Noun 2. B. definition from Roscoe's post, or something similar, is what 5E uses. Otherwise, if you cast Fireball the point of origin takes 8d6 fire damage, and then all creatures within 20' of that make a save or else... nothing happens regardless of them passing or failing the save.
I'm going to throw this out I could totally be off base on your comment. In the updated Twinned spells entry of SAC there is the following paragraph.
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:
To me, this paragraph screams RAI, and not RAW, which if they wanted this entry to be fully RAW that paragraph would not have existed.
The more this discussion goes on the more I'm understanding the spell as the scenario if the creatures are bunched together then the impact is that the AOE is larger when it selects two targets but each creature makes one save and takes one damage on the failed to save even if the two targets AOE overlaps each other. (I think I got that correct)
Let me see if I have this next scenario correct. (It should be an easy and obvious one but I like to talk/type things out to make sure.
Setup:
Two groups of creatures are 20 feet apart.
[1][2][3] [4][5][6] [7] [8]
The sorcerer Twinned spell Ice Knife and targets [2] and [5] where all creatures in the separate AOE range are affected. In this case, the casted Ice Knife works are normally as two 'separate' (I know what the entry is on the sorcerer page reads. Two but one.) spells were cast.
Do I have that right?
no its the same spell. if you cast a single target concentration spell its still the same concentration. Technically you cover more squares of possible damage by separating it.
But again if you take the stance that ice knife is twin-able, you are actively ignoring JC's statement that it isn't. If you want to homebrew it fine.
Ok look at it this way, the spell says each creature makes saves They are then flagged ( or targeted) for the save. They make the saving throw. A creature that was already "flaged" ( or targeted) is determined to have made the save or not. The save damage happens once because you are either flagged or not Then the damage roll happens.
I think there is a order of events that describes this. I will try and look it up when I get back to my computer.
For example, if a wizard directs burning hands (a 15-foot cone) at a nearby group of orcs, you could use the table and say that two orcs are targeted (15 ÷ 10 = 1.5, rounded up to 2). Similarly, a sorcerer could launch a lightning bolt (100-foot line) at some ogres and hobgoblins, and you could use the table to say four of the monsters are targeted (100 ÷ 30 = 3.33, rounded up to 4).
Neither of these spells uses the word target, But the dmg defines the creatures affected as targets. This confirms that the writers assume the second Webster definition. we know from other places (here) if you are under attack roll you are a target. so BOTH natural definitions are true. they are not even mutually exclusive.
anything in a AOE is a target of the AOE. The location of the AOE is the target chosen by creator(caster). So in ice knife the caster targets a Creature. this creature is the target location for the explosion. the explosion targets each creature within 5' and the original Target creating a second group of targets.
By the wording, there is only one creature who is ever referred to as the "target," and the damage to other creatures is a spell effect. By technical grammar, only one creature is specified as a "target," but I do concede that rules as intended seems to be to explicitly grant affecting 2 creatures or objects instead of 1. One complication with that to consider is that by RAW, Ice Knife must target a creature and not a point.
Ice knife is capable of targeting more than one creature because of the AOE dex save. So you cannot twin it. Mearls tweets are at best RAI and he was not allowed to make official rulings or official sage advice answers for the game.
That's incorrect. Targetting is different from hitting. Technically, it can only target one creature, with the attack roll. Thus it should be able to twin by RAW
Ice knife is capable of targeting more than one creature because of the AOE dex save. So you cannot twin it. Mearls tweets are at best RAI and he was not allowed to make official rulings or official sage advice answers for the game.
That's incorrect. Targetting is different from hitting. Technically, it can only target one creature, with the attack roll. Thus it should be able to twin by RAW
Ice knife is capable of targeting more than one creature because of the AOE dex save. So you cannot twin it. Mearls tweets are at best RAI and he was not allowed to make official rulings or official sage advice answers for the game.
That's incorrect. Targetting is different from hitting. Technically, it can only target one creature, with the attack roll. Thus it should be able to twin by RAW
The rules don't define "target," so we're forced to rely on the standard English uses of the word. If something is within the AoE when you put it down and can potentially be affected by the spell, the spell is targeting it. So "targeting" is indeed different from hitting, but only because the targets could potentially succeed at their saving throws.
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).
Many spells specify that a target can make a saving throw to avoid some or all of a spell's effects. The spell specifies the ability that the target uses for the save and what happens on a success or failure.
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).
Many spells specify that a target can make a saving throw to avoid some or all of a spell's effects. The spell specifies the ability that the target uses for the save and what happens on a success or failure.
None of that defines what a target is, which is my point.
In it JC explains that what a target is for a spell is not rigorously defined in the rules as part of a design philosophy shift from 4th edition. 4th edition very explicitly defines what a spell or ability targets and it is a rigorously defined game term. With 5th edition they wanted to rely more on natural language and only defined game terms when the meaning for the game was distinctly different than how it is defined in idiomatic english. JC covers this and what he thinks 'target' means from 10:20 to roughly 13:00 in the podcast.
JC later goes into Twinned Spell metamagic specifically starting at 19:20 and describes something very much like what is outlined in the SAC as what is considered the target of a spell. He gives the example of Fireball and discusses that though what the player initially targets is a point in space, the creatures caught in the blast are also considered by D&D to be targets of the spell. He elaborates that this is why Fireball then goes on to refer to such creatures explicitly as targets when describing the damage dealt, to help make it clear that although the caster did not explicitly choose to target the creatures caught in the fireball (they chose a point in space) the creatures are none the less targets of the spell. Ice Knife is far from the only offender in not being as careful with its wording, just a quick search shows that Aganazzar’s Scorcher for example doesn't use the word target anywhere in its description.
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).
Many spells specify that a target can make a saving throw to avoid some or all of a spell's effects. The spell specifies the ability that the target uses for the save and what happens on a success or failure.
None of that defines what a target is, which is my point.
It dosen't define target(s) but assuming those statements are a true part of the rules of the game* then it reinforced the usage to where we have no other options but to use both dictionary definitions. Targets may not be a raw term but it's outlined without much wiggle room.
I'M Not trying to disagree with anyone saying the same thing but rather show the clear position.
*true part of the game- there are a few places of flavor text people treat as part of the game but aren't. I do not think this applies to this discussion.
I'm following what SAC is saying but I'm trying to understand the WHY and using scenarios helps me illustrate my understanding because if I cannot explain to my players the problem I'm not going to get their buy-in that I'm following a rule and not just saying NO cause JC said so.
Yeah, it was these two lines in the SAC that got me thinking more of the issues of Ice Knife with a Twinned spell (before I knew it was already an issue) but all that text is buried under an RAI text which does not necessarily make it RAW.
Yes, where it is explicitly called out as intent, it is intent. The rest is, per the WotC website, "The Sage Advice Compendium is the official D&D rules FAQ, gathering D&D rules questions and providing answers to them." Agreed, the list at the end is RAI not RAW.
Ok look at it this way, the spell says each creature makes saves They are then flagged ( or targeted) for the save. They make the saving throw. A creature that was already "flaged" ( or targeted) is determined to have made the save or not. The save damage happens once because you are either flagged or not Then the damage roll happens.
I think there is a order of events that describes this. I will try and look it up when I get back to my computer.I didn't find the section on processing the order of events. this is The closest but this statement shows any thing affected by an aoe is a target. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/running-the-game#AdjudicatingAreasofEffect
Neither of these spells uses the word target, But the dmg defines the creatures affected as targets. This confirms that the writers assume the second Webster definition. we know from other places (here) if you are under attack roll you are a target. so BOTH natural definitions are true. they are not even mutually exclusive.
anything in a AOE is a target of the AOE. The location of the AOE is the target chosen by creator(caster). So in ice knife the caster targets a Creature. this creature is the target location for the explosion. the explosion targets each creature within 5' and the original Target creating a second group of targets.
By the wording, there is only one creature who is ever referred to as the "target," and the damage to other creatures is a spell effect. By technical grammar, only one creature is specified as a "target," but I do concede that rules as intended seems to be to explicitly grant affecting 2 creatures or objects instead of 1. One complication with that to consider is that by RAW, Ice Knife must target a creature and not a point.
That's incorrect. Targetting is different from hitting. Technically, it can only target one creature, with the attack roll. Thus it should be able to twin by RAW
See the second list of qualifiers in the SAC at https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA244
Ice Knife fails due to the test: "The spell can force more than one creature to make a saving throw before the spell’s duration expires"
The rules don't define "target," so we're forced to rely on the standard English uses of the word. If something is within the AoE when you put it down and can potentially be affected by the spell, the spell is targeting it. So "targeting" is indeed different from hitting, but only because the targets could potentially succeed at their saving throws.
Actually the rules do specify Targets for spells: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting#Targets
However, the Saving throw section also specifically refers to only targets of the spell make saving throws: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting#SavingThrows
None of that defines what a target is, which is my point.
How a target is defined is something Jeremy Crawford has touched on in the Sage Advice section of the D&D podcast, specifically the January 17th 2017 podcast here: https://media.wizards.com/2017/podcasts/dnd/DnDPodcast_01_19_2017.mp3
In it JC explains that what a target is for a spell is not rigorously defined in the rules as part of a design philosophy shift from 4th edition. 4th edition very explicitly defines what a spell or ability targets and it is a rigorously defined game term. With 5th edition they wanted to rely more on natural language and only defined game terms when the meaning for the game was distinctly different than how it is defined in idiomatic english. JC covers this and what he thinks 'target' means from 10:20 to roughly 13:00 in the podcast.
JC later goes into Twinned Spell metamagic specifically starting at 19:20 and describes something very much like what is outlined in the SAC as what is considered the target of a spell. He gives the example of Fireball and discusses that though what the player initially targets is a point in space, the creatures caught in the blast are also considered by D&D to be targets of the spell. He elaborates that this is why Fireball then goes on to refer to such creatures explicitly as targets when describing the damage dealt, to help make it clear that although the caster did not explicitly choose to target the creatures caught in the fireball (they chose a point in space) the creatures are none the less targets of the spell. Ice Knife is far from the only offender in not being as careful with its wording, just a quick search shows that Aganazzar’s Scorcher for example doesn't use the word target anywhere in its description.
It dosen't define target(s) but assuming those statements are a true part of the rules of the game* then it reinforced the usage to where we have no other options but to use both dictionary definitions. Targets may not be a raw term but it's outlined without much wiggle room.
I'M Not trying to disagree with anyone saying the same thing but rather show the clear position.
*true part of the game- there are a few places of flavor text people treat as part of the game but aren't. I do not think this applies to this discussion.