As DxJxC mentioned, Dragon's Breath only targets 1 creature, granting said creature a special attack (a breath weapon attack), so Dragon's Breath is twinnable by RAW.
It also is not excessively powerful, so I don't think it makes sense to ban the combo.
Further, again as DxJxC mentioned, Haste works the same way (granting 1 creature something extra, which can be used to attack), so you would need to ban twinning Haste if you go that route.
Something further to keep in mind, is the cost of Twinning spells. It costs a number of sorcery points equal to the spell level. So, to Twin Ice Knife would cost a 1st level spell slot + 1 sorcery point. To Twin Dragon's Breath would cost a 2nd level spell slot + 2 sorcery points. To Twin Haste would cost a 3rd level spell slot + 3 sorcery points.
Keep an eye on your sorcerer's sorcery points; if they deplete quickly without constant use of the above spells being Twinned, then I wouldn't worry about them being Twinned.
There are spells with multiple groups of targets but all are targets. Take silvery barbs or warding bond.
An aoe is a target area that signals effect targets.
Bottom line casting ice knife is the possibility of multiple creatures being altered for that action is what made it disqualified.
Also I would like to add there is a distinct argument that even if it were twined you could not do the cold damage twice because effects with the same name cannot stack [if they happen at the same time]
Also I would like to add there is a distinct argument that even if it were twined you could not do the cold damage twice because effects with the same name cannot stack [if they happen at the same time]
As I recall, effects with the same name are only prevented from stacking if they have a duration longer than instant, unless they contain a clause about the target receiving temporary immunity. As Ice Knife has no such clause, and both its primary and secondary effects are instant, it would be possible for a creature to be affected by the secondary effect from 2 instances. See DxJxC below.
As for there being spells where there are multiple targets in an AOE, go back and read the secondary effect of Ice Knife, it explicitly distinguishes between "the target and each creature", so regardless of other spells and AOE's, this one clearly has only 1 target.
Also I would like to add there is a distinct argument that even if it were twined you could not do the cold damage twice because effects with the same name cannot stack [if they happen at the same time]
Actually, this is a great point.
Because twinned spell only changes the number of targets, not create a second instance of the spell, both AOE areas are the same AOE effect. So only 1 damage roll that applies to each creature in the areas once. Meteor swarm works that way too.
The wording basically becomes "the targets and each creature within 5 feet of them"
Also I would like to add there is a distinct argument that even if it were twined you could not do the cold damage twice because effects with the same name cannot stack [if they happen at the same time]
Actually, this is a great point.
Because twinned spell only changes the number of targets, not create a second instance of the spell, both AOE areas are the same AOE effect. So only 1 damage roll that applies to each creature in the areas once.Meteor swarm works that way too.
I don't follow but then again I seem to be clueless lately on rules.
So I have this setup.
[1][2][3][4] [5][6][7][8] [9][10][11][12]
The sorcerer twinned Ice Knife and cast it on [6][7]. I would say that each of the outer numbers would be forced to make saves and some twice. But you are saying that is incorrect?
What DxJxC is saying is that Twinned Spell isn't creating a second casting of the spell for free, it is just increasing how many creatures are affected.
So in your example, creatures [6] & [7] would receive the primary effect of the spell once, then all the creatures would roll a save against the secondary effect once, because the secondary effect would have an increased area, but not happen twice.
What DxJxC is saying is that Twinned Spell isn't creating a second casting of the spell for free, it is just increasing how many creatures are affected.
So in your example, creatures [6] & [7] would receive the primary effect of the spell once, then all the creatures would roll a save against the secondary effect once, because the secondary effect would have an increased area, but not happen twice.
So take [2] it would save once but if failed take two damage rolls?
No, [2] would save once and if they fail take only one damage roll, not two, because in the case of Ice Knife, Twinned Spell would be increasing the amount of area affected by the secondary effect.
Basically, Twinned Spell increases the number of creatures affected, but not the number of times they are affected.
The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don’t combine, however. Instead, the most potent effect — such as the highest bonus — from those castings applies while their durations overlap, or the most recent effect applies if the castings are equally potent and their durations overlap.
For example, if two clerics cast bless on the same target, that character gains the spell’s benefit only once; he or she doesn’t get to roll two bonus dice.
That is what Roscoeivan was referring to, 2 castings of the same spell on 1 target.
Twinned Spell is not that. Twinned Spell instead increases how many creatures are affected, but is not "the same spell cast multiple times" as the spell was still only cast once.
Because the spell is still only cast once, all of its listed rolls & effects only happen one time, unless the specific spell says they repeat.
Both of the effects from Ice Knife happen only once, so Twinned Spell only lets them affect more creatures, but not more times.
What Roscoeivan referred to (what you quoted) would require 2 players each casting the same spell with duration longer than instant on the same target at the same time.
If you look at the "range" of Ice Knife then you see that the two components of range are 60 ft and and an area of 5 ft sphere. This means that it can potentially affect more than one creature, so should not be allowed to be Twinned.
Dragon's Breath has a range of touch and an area of 15 ft cone.
Taking the area of effect into account helps clarify whether the spell targets a single person or an area.
If you look at the "range" of Ice Knife then you see that the two components of range are 60 ft and and an area of 5 ft sphere. This means that it can potentially affect more than one creature, so should not be allowed to be Twinned.
Dragon's Breath has a range of touch and an area of 15 ft cone.
Taking the area of effect into account helps clarify whether the spell targets a single person or an area.
But if you look at the range of ice knife, then you see only the range of 60 feet. This is because the listings on DDB compile the information in the books to make it more intuitive. It doesn't really change the rules interpretation and the RAW is always what is in the books, not what is represented by DDB's tools.
Dragon's breath also only has the 1 range of "touch" in the RAW. This is why the confusion with twinned spell exists.
I am a DM and have a sorcerer in my campaign. She very often uses "Twinned Spell" to give herself and another player Dragon's Breath. I can see nothing in the Rules as Written that would not allow that to happen, and I think it's fun. It has in no way become over-powered or game-breaking. I honestly see no problem with it.
Ice knife hasn't come up yet as a Twinned Spell, however after reading the above I would rule it as admissible, however I agree with other commenters that anyone caught in the area twice would only take one instance of the AOE damage. I don't think that would be overpowered or make the Twinning of the spell be less wanted.
If what you all are saying is correct, that it is one casting but the AOE gets bigger by twinning it, Is it really that big of a deal if ice knife is twinned? The initial target takes 5.5 average damage then 7 average damage from the secondary effect (12.5 total) only if they fail a Dex save. The second initial target (if twinned) would take the same 12.5 points of damage average. All the other creatures around it would take 7 points on a failed save, on average. Nothing if they make the save. And upcasting only adds a 1d6 (3.5 avg) per spell slot. Yes this is good damage once metamagic comes on line at 2nd level, but doesn’t seem to scale well.
And OP, when you said this was the players basis for their character, was this twinning ice knife specifically? If so I might allow it. If you don’t allow it then let them respec their character if they want.
I am a DM and have a sorcerer in my campaign. She very often uses "Twinned Spell" to give herself and another player Dragon's Breath. I can see nothing in the Rules as Written that would not allow that to happen, and I think it's fun. It has in no way become over-powered or game-breaking. I honestly see no problem with it.
Ice knife hasn't come up yet as a Twinned Spell, however after reading the above I would rule it as admissible, however I agree with other commenters that anyone caught in the area twice would only take one instance of the AOE damage. I don't think that would be overpowered or make the Twinning of the spell be less wanted.
It depends on if you count the targets of the breath as targets of the spell. Everything else (fun, over-powered, game-breaking, and so on), while important in the game, isn't relevant to RAW. Most everyone can find something in RAW that is not fun, over-powered, or under-powered.
If what you all are saying is correct, that it is one casting but the AOE gets bigger by twinning it, Is it really that big of a deal if ice knife is twinned? The initial target takes 5.5 average damage then 7 average damage from the secondary effect (12.5 total) only if they fail a Dex save. The second initial target (if twinned) would take the same 12.5 points of damage average. All the other creatures around it would take 7 points on a failed save, on average. Nothing if they make the save. And upcasting only adds a 1d6 (3.5 avg) per spell slot. Yes this is good damage once metamagic comes on line at 2nd level, but doesn’t seem to scale well.
And OP, when you said this was the players basis for their character, was this twinning ice knife specifically? If so I might allow it. If you don’t allow it then let them respec their character if they want.
I talked to the sorcerer and they had gone and done their own research into Twinned spell Ice Knife and Dragon's Breath and they understand the concerns I had brought up and what had been written in the SA Compendium. The sorcerer agreed with the design intent of the spell and decided they would follow what was written in the SAC. So once he got the baseline of the concern I had we had a talk about his character design as it turns out the character design was not as tied to the Twinned spell as was initially presented to me so I think we got over that hurdle.
I am a DM and have a sorcerer in my campaign. She very often uses "Twinned Spell" to give herself and another player Dragon's Breath. I can see nothing in the Rules as Written that would not allow that to happen, and I think it's fun. It has in no way become over-powered or game-breaking. I honestly see no problem with it.
Ice knife hasn't come up yet as a Twinned Spell, however after reading the above I would rule it as admissible, however I agree with other commenters that anyone caught in the area twice would only take one instance of the AOE damage. I don't think that would be overpowered or make the Twinning of the spell be less wanted.
It depends on if you count the targets of the breath as targets of the spell. Everything else (fun, over-powered, game-breaking, and so on), while important in the game, isn't relevant to RAW. Most everyone can find something in RAW that is not fun, over-powered, or under-powered.
I guess the question then is any creature affected by a spell a target of a spell?
Not pertinent to the "Twinned Spell" conversation, as it has a range of "Self", but Shadow Blade conjures a sword made out of solidified gloom into your hand for the duration. If you attack a creature with the Shadow Blade, would you consider them to be a target of the spell? Even Silent Image (again, not pertinent to the Twinned Spell discussion as it doesn't target "one" creature), the "target" is an area of a 15ft cube. However creatures can make a Save against the effects, Investigation check against your spell save DC. Therefore would they be considered "targets" of the spell?
I know you didn't bring up Ice Knife in your reply, but if you go by how many targets the effect of a spell might have instead of how many targets it states it has (Ice Knife has one target "You create a shard of ice and fling it at one creature within range.), then you would be able to Twin Ice Knife as long as there was no one else around the two creatures you flung the Ice Knives at, because then it would fit the Twinned Spell description of only affecting two total creatures.
For Dragon's Breath, if you assume creatures affected by the spell also count as targets, technically you could Twin Dragon's Breath no problem, until the creatures you cast it on used it on other creatures. Because until the point that they actually use the Dragon's Breath, they have fully complied with the stated requirements of Twinning the spell.
That's why I think the spell text, stating "You touch one willing creature" or "You create a shard of ice and fling it at one creature within range" are the important parts for determining if a spell targets one or more creature.
The difference in my mind is no transitive targets. Dragons breath modifies a single creature. That creature is the one doing the damage not the spell. Haste is the same .... the extra attack isn't magical. It's a granted attack that the target makes.
Now ice knife is all the same action called out in the single cast a spell action. There is no way its valid for twinspell.(even though I think it's a fun homebrew)
I guess the question then is any creature affected by a spell a target of a spell?
If you read through enough of 5e, the answer to that question is both Yes, and No.
Parts of 5e, both within spells and without, use the word target in reference to one affected by something, while other parts use the word in reference to something selected, but not yet affected, hindering us with countering precedents.
Notably, outside 5e, the word target has a fairly clear meaning, to summarize: "a target is something selected, typically for attack". With the word having its roots in a small shield, akin to a buckler. (something intended to be attacked instead of the user)
Within 5e, there is no independent definition for target, forcing us to look at example, leading to this issue.
Further, even Twinned Spell itself is worded poorly, written such that spells target, when spells themselves can have no intent (barring the living ones), and thus cannot target themselves, only being used to target with.
Roscoivan, the issue with Ice Knife is that even though it is all the same action through a single casting, intent is key.
Within the spell, only 1 creature is chosen to receive damage, while it might affect creatures surrounding said creature, if they are present.
Consider, the dagger of ice that is thrown explodes upon striking the target, and it is this shrapnel that forces the save. Was it intended that the dagger act as a grenade? We don't know. It might simply be that the dagger is unstable enough to remain whole, and explodes incidentally, rather than intentionally. All we do know is that the spell describes only the creature struck with the dagger itself as the target.
Further, how much time has passed since the publishing of Ice Knife? How long have people questioned this interaction? Long enough to warrant a ruling within the SAC, yet apparently not enough to warrant a simple errata.
In fact, this interaction must not be deemed significant (or the designers cannot be bothered to care about it) considering said lack of errata.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As DxJxC mentioned, Dragon's Breath only targets 1 creature, granting said creature a special attack (a breath weapon attack), so Dragon's Breath is twinnable by RAW.
It also is not excessively powerful, so I don't think it makes sense to ban the combo.
Further, again as DxJxC mentioned, Haste works the same way (granting 1 creature something extra, which can be used to attack), so you would need to ban twinning Haste if you go that route.
Something further to keep in mind, is the cost of Twinning spells. It costs a number of sorcery points equal to the spell level. So, to Twin Ice Knife would cost a 1st level spell slot + 1 sorcery point. To Twin Dragon's Breath would cost a 2nd level spell slot + 2 sorcery points. To Twin Haste would cost a 3rd level spell slot + 3 sorcery points.
Keep an eye on your sorcerer's sorcery points; if they deplete quickly without constant use of the above spells being Twinned, then I wouldn't worry about them being Twinned.
There are spells with multiple groups of targets but all are targets. Take silvery barbs or warding bond.
An aoe is a target area that signals effect targets.
Bottom line casting ice knife is the possibility of multiple creatures being altered for that action is what made it disqualified.
Also I would like to add there is a distinct argument that even if it were twined you could not do the cold damage twice because effects with the same name cannot stack [if they happen at the same time]
As I recall, effects with the same name are only prevented from stacking if they have a duration longer than instant, unless they contain a clause about the target receiving temporary immunity. As Ice Knife has no such clause, and both its primary and secondary effects are instant, it would be possible for a creature to be affected by the secondary effect from
2 instances.See DxJxC below.As for there being spells where there are multiple targets in an AOE, go back and read the secondary effect of Ice Knife, it explicitly distinguishes between "the target and each creature", so regardless of other spells and AOE's, this one clearly has only 1 target.
Actually, this is a great point.
Because twinned spell only changes the number of targets, not create a second instance of the spell, both AOE areas are the same AOE effect. So only 1 damage roll that applies to each creature in the areas once. Meteor swarm works that way too.
The wording basically becomes "the targets and each creature within 5 feet of them"
I don't follow but then again I seem to be clueless lately on rules.
So I have this setup.
[1][2][3][4]
[5][6][7][8]
[9][10][11][12]
The sorcerer twinned Ice Knife and cast it on [6][7]. I would say that each of the outer numbers would be forced to make saves and some twice. But you are saying that is incorrect?
What DxJxC is saying is that Twinned Spell isn't creating a second casting of the spell for free, it is just increasing how many creatures are affected.
So in your example, creatures [6] & [7] would receive the primary effect of the spell once, then all the creatures would roll a save against the secondary effect once, because the secondary effect would have an increased area, but not happen twice.
So take [2] it would save once but if failed take two damage rolls?
No, [2] would save once and if they fail take only one damage roll, not two, because in the case of Ice Knife, Twinned Spell would be increasing the amount of area affected by the secondary effect.
Basically, Twinned Spell increases the number of creatures affected, but not the number of times they are affected.
Is this what you are referring to:
That is what Roscoeivan was referring to, 2 castings of the same spell on 1 target.
Twinned Spell is not that. Twinned Spell instead increases how many creatures are affected, but is not "the same spell cast multiple times" as the spell was still only cast once.
Because the spell is still only cast once, all of its listed rolls & effects only happen one time, unless the specific spell says they repeat.
Both of the effects from Ice Knife happen only once, so Twinned Spell only lets them affect more creatures, but not more times.
What Roscoeivan referred to (what you quoted) would require 2 players each casting the same spell with duration longer than instant on the same target at the same time.
If you look at the "range" of Ice Knife then you see that the two components of range are 60 ft and and an area of 5 ft sphere. This means that it can potentially affect more than one creature, so should not be allowed to be Twinned.
Dragon's Breath has a range of touch and an area of 15 ft cone.
Taking the area of effect into account helps clarify whether the spell targets a single person or an area.
But if you look at the range of ice knife, then you see only the range of 60 feet. This is because the listings on DDB compile the information in the books to make it more intuitive. It doesn't really change the rules interpretation and the RAW is always what is in the books, not what is represented by DDB's tools.
Dragon's breath also only has the 1 range of "touch" in the RAW. This is why the confusion with twinned spell exists.
I am a DM and have a sorcerer in my campaign. She very often uses "Twinned Spell" to give herself and another player Dragon's Breath. I can see nothing in the Rules as Written that would not allow that to happen, and I think it's fun. It has in no way become over-powered or game-breaking. I honestly see no problem with it.
Ice knife hasn't come up yet as a Twinned Spell, however after reading the above I would rule it as admissible, however I agree with other commenters that anyone caught in the area twice would only take one instance of the AOE damage. I don't think that would be overpowered or make the Twinning of the spell be less wanted.
If what you all are saying is correct, that it is one casting but the AOE gets bigger by twinning it, Is it really that big of a deal if ice knife is twinned? The initial target takes 5.5 average damage then 7 average damage from the secondary effect (12.5 total) only if they fail a Dex save. The second initial target (if twinned) would take the same 12.5 points of damage average. All the other creatures around it would take 7 points on a failed save, on average. Nothing if they make the save. And upcasting only adds a 1d6 (3.5 avg) per spell slot. Yes this is good damage once metamagic comes on line at 2nd level, but doesn’t seem to scale well.
And OP, when you said this was the players basis for their character, was this twinning ice knife specifically? If so I might allow it. If you don’t allow it then let them respec their character if they want.
It depends on if you count the targets of the breath as targets of the spell. Everything else (fun, over-powered, game-breaking, and so on), while important in the game, isn't relevant to RAW. Most everyone can find something in RAW that is not fun, over-powered, or under-powered.
I talked to the sorcerer and they had gone and done their own research into Twinned spell Ice Knife and Dragon's Breath and they understand the concerns I had brought up and what had been written in the SA Compendium. The sorcerer agreed with the design intent of the spell and decided they would follow what was written in the SAC. So once he got the baseline of the concern I had we had a talk about his character design as it turns out the character design was not as tied to the Twinned spell as was initially presented to me so I think we got over that hurdle.
I guess the question then is any creature affected by a spell a target of a spell?
Not pertinent to the "Twinned Spell" conversation, as it has a range of "Self", but Shadow Blade conjures a sword made out of solidified gloom into your hand for the duration. If you attack a creature with the Shadow Blade, would you consider them to be a target of the spell? Even Silent Image (again, not pertinent to the Twinned Spell discussion as it doesn't target "one" creature), the "target" is an area of a 15ft cube. However creatures can make a Save against the effects, Investigation check against your spell save DC. Therefore would they be considered "targets" of the spell?
I know you didn't bring up Ice Knife in your reply, but if you go by how many targets the effect of a spell might have instead of how many targets it states it has (Ice Knife has one target "You create a shard of ice and fling it at one creature within range.), then you would be able to Twin Ice Knife as long as there was no one else around the two creatures you flung the Ice Knives at, because then it would fit the Twinned Spell description of only affecting two total creatures.
For Dragon's Breath, if you assume creatures affected by the spell also count as targets, technically you could Twin Dragon's Breath no problem, until the creatures you cast it on used it on other creatures. Because until the point that they actually use the Dragon's Breath, they have fully complied with the stated requirements of Twinning the spell.
That's why I think the spell text, stating "You touch one willing creature" or "You create a shard of ice and fling it at one creature within range" are the important parts for determining if a spell targets one or more creature.
The difference in my mind is no transitive targets. Dragons breath modifies a single creature. That creature is the one doing the damage not the spell. Haste is the same .... the extra attack isn't magical. It's a granted attack that the target makes.
Now ice knife is all the same action called out in the single cast a spell action. There is no way its valid for twinspell.(even though I think it's a fun homebrew)
If you read through enough of 5e, the answer to that question is both Yes, and No.
Parts of 5e, both within spells and without, use the word target in reference to one affected by something, while other parts use the word in reference to something selected, but not yet affected, hindering us with countering precedents.
Notably, outside 5e, the word target has a fairly clear meaning, to summarize: "a target is something selected, typically for attack". With the word having its roots in a small shield, akin to a buckler. (something intended to be attacked instead of the user)
Within 5e, there is no independent definition for target, forcing us to look at example, leading to this issue.
Further, even Twinned Spell itself is worded poorly, written such that spells target, when spells themselves can have no intent (barring the living ones), and thus cannot target themselves, only being used to target with.
Roscoivan, the issue with Ice Knife is that even though it is all the same action through a single casting, intent is key.
Within the spell, only 1 creature is chosen to receive damage, while it might affect creatures surrounding said creature, if they are present.
Consider, the dagger of ice that is thrown explodes upon striking the target, and it is this shrapnel that forces the save. Was it intended that the dagger act as a grenade? We don't know. It might simply be that the dagger is unstable enough to remain whole, and explodes incidentally, rather than intentionally. All we do know is that the spell describes only the creature struck with the dagger itself as the target.
Further, how much time has passed since the publishing of Ice Knife? How long have people questioned this interaction? Long enough to warrant a ruling within the SAC, yet apparently not enough to warrant a simple errata.
In fact, this interaction must not be deemed significant (or the designers cannot be bothered to care about it) considering said lack of errata.