intent has little to do with it. even fun is not relevant. speculating on why the designers did or did not errata something is unhelpful in many instances(even though I enjoy RAI speculation).
understanding the laid out principles allows consistent communication and rulings(although sometimes there are multiple different rulings) across the community. .
now we have a statement that itself isn't speculation but is directly from the the JC. https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/897549515984654338 this clearly shows a point of origin is one type of target and the creatures and objects inside are also possible targets of a different category.
in the instance of dragons breath the "spell" does not target. the creature making the breath attack is targeting. the creature is causing the effect even though it was granted by a spell.
Would a character, under the effect of sanctuary,casting magic weapon loose sanctuary if the magic weapon was used by an ally to attack? No the caster of magic weapon never affected an enemy.
intent has little to do with it. even fun is not relevant. speculating on why the designers did or did not errata something is unhelpful in many instances(even though I enjoy RAI speculation).
understanding the laid out principles allows consistent communication and rulings(although sometimes there are multiple different rulings) across the community. .
now we have a statement that itself isn't speculation but is directly from the the JC. https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/897549515984654338 this clearly shows a point of origin is one type of target and the creatures and objects inside are also possible targets of a different category.
intent has little to do with it. even fun is not relevant. speculating on why the designers did or did not errata something is unhelpful in many instances(even though I enjoy RAI speculation).
understanding the laid out principles allows consistent communication and rulings(although sometimes there are multiple different rulings) across the community. .
now we have a statement that itself isn't speculation but is directly from the the JC. https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/897549515984654338 this clearly shows a point of origin is one type of target and the creatures and objects inside are also possible targets of a different category.
Well, I don't think that pertains very well to the topic, because that thread is talking about Area of Effect spells like Fireball where the target is a "point", but I'll save everyone the trouble and just put this on here:
JC on Sage Advice, when asked if Ice Knife can be twinned, simply says "No." When asked for clarification, he says "Because it can affect more than one creature."
So according to JC, the answer is no, Ice Knife cannot be Twinned..
However, honestly, I really don't care. It doesn't make sense to me that it would be that way according to the wording of the "Twinned Spell" Metamagic and how spells are worded about what a "target" is. But I guess this is going to be one of those things where you either agree or don't. I don't think there is a right answer here. There's assuredly JC's opinion, however he's not the only person at Wizards, and if it was that big of a deal they have had time and opportunity to fix the wording and they haven't, so this is probably a case of "rulings, not rules" and honestly, I see no problem with allowing my player's sorcerer to Twin Dragon's Breath and Ice Knife and, hell, even Chaos Bolt. It's not overpowered as far as I can see, and it makes sense to me, the DM, so I guess that's good enough for me.
It doespertain because it all justifies jc's statement. If something is affected you are a target. Secondary effects and primary ones are both targets. Objects and locations. Are all targets.
If you read my comment immediately previous to the one you replied to, I think it should be clear what intent has to do with.
To say it again in a short manner: targeting is all about intent. According to all definitions we do have, something is not a target just because it was affected, it must have been chosen to be a target. 5e however has no independent definition for the word target, so we must rely on example; some of which follow the definitions for the word, some of which violate it, instead treating the recipient of an effect as a target, whether or not they were chosen. Because we have conflicting uses of the word, we must go case-by-case, looking at the specific wording of the thing in question.
In this case, Ice Knife is explicit in distinguishing between the target and other creatures.
As for Crawford's statements: He has given contradictory answers, he has just repeated the text in question (a non-answer), he has even seemingly mocked the questioner at times; simply put, he is not a reliable source for meaning. Heck, unless he himself wrote a vast majority of 5e, then he has been answering on behalf of those who did write rules, with no guarantee that he even consults them first. Given his above issues with answering, I cannot trust him at all as a source, on any level.
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.
"To be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level."
There is no allowance for until in Twinnable spells. Either the spell is capable of targeting multiple creatures, or it isn't.
If you read my comment immediately previous to the one you replied to, I think it should be clear what intent has to do with.
To say it again in a short manner: targeting is all about intent. According to all definitions we do have, something is not a target just because it was affected, it must have been chosen to be a target. 5e however has no independent definition for the word target, so we must rely on example; some of which follow the definitions for the word, some of which violate it, instead treating the recipient of an effect as a target, whether or not they were chosen. Because we have conflicting uses of the word, we must go case-by-case, looking at the specific wording of the thing in question.
In this case, Ice Knife is explicit in distinguishing between the target and other creatures.
As for Crawford's statements: He has given contradictory answers, he has just repeated the text in question (a non-answer), he has even seemingly mocked the questioner at times; simply put, he is not a reliable source for meaning. Heck, unless he himself wrote a vast majority of 5e, then he has been answering on behalf of those who did write rules, with no guarantee that he even consults them first. Given his above issues with answering, I cannot trust him at all as a source, on any level.
Are there any examples of a affected creature/object explicitly not being a target? That would give a RAW backing to this view. Otherwise, there could just be explicit targets & implicit targets, like with Fireball.
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).
If you read my comment immediately previous to the one you replied to, I think it should be clear what intent has to do with.
To say it again in a short manner: targeting is all about intent. According to all definitions we do have, something is not a target just because it was affected, it must have been chosen to be a target. 5e however has no independent definition for the word target, so we must rely on example; some of which follow the definitions for the word, some of which violate it, instead treating the recipient of an effect as a target, whether or not they were chosen. Because we have conflicting uses of the word, we must go case-by-case, looking at the specific wording of the thing in question.
In this case, Ice Knife is explicit in distinguishing between the target and other creatures.
As for Crawford's statements: He has given contradictory answers, he has just repeated the text in question (a non-answer), he has even seemingly mocked the questioner at times; simply put, he is not a reliable source for meaning. Heck, unless he himself wrote a vast majority of 5e, then he has been answering on behalf of those who did write rules, with no guarantee that he even consults them first. Given his above issues with answering, I cannot trust him at all as a source, on any level.
I see now what you mean by intent but I mostly disagree. I don't think it is a good mechanical qualifier. there are spells and abilities that could "remove intent." people could argue whether or not picking an area is picking the targets inside. by saying intent is the main determining factor you are still left with as many or more questions.
As for JC statements I have seen no contradiction in regards to targets. He however does not explain the full implications of his statements so they appear nebulous and vague.
"In this case, Ice Knife is explicit in distinguishing between the target and other creatures."
There is such a thing as context targets. for one effect there is a target and other creatures. but for the second set of targets both groups are included. The term other is right for one effect and there is a second effect as well. separate events but all part of the same spell. the second target group is dependent on them being the "other within 5ft" of the first target. so they are both "other" and "targets" at the same time.
5e however has no independent definition for the word target,
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.
Sorcerer cast Twinned Spell on Ice Knife and placed each spell on a separate target in a mass of creatures.
...
I interpret the spell as still active during each step of the spell since the secondary effect forces the saving throw which invalidates using the Twinned spell. Is this correct or do I have again a lack of understanding of the rules?
Also, I see Sage Advice from JC and Mike Mearls with conflicting answers.
Yes you have the correct meaning from your quoted text.
The SAC provides the design intent of Twinned Spell - so it clarifies how to apply the word "target" in the Twinned Spell description.
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.
The cause that Dragon's Breath should not be allowed to be Twinned is that because the target of the spell (the creature granted the breath) can use said breath against other creatures, then the spell can target multiple creatures. Even though anyone with any sense or reading comprehension understands this not to be the case. Keep in mind, technically the spell Haste (among others) works exactly the same as Dragon's Breath (grants something to 1 creature, which can be used against others).
Basically, we have 2 problems: 1- that apparently no-one of final authority in WOTC understood what the word 'target' means, leading to its misuse in the rules; and 2- that those same authorities cannot be bothered to make sure the language (right or wrong) is consistent and explained.
The reason some are saying that Dragon's Breath should not be allowed to be Twinned is because before the end of its duration it can affect multiple "targets".
This is where the debate comes in. Some are saying (and it seems like JC and Sage Advice advise in this way as well) that any creature affected by the spell (i.e. that have to make a saving throw against it or take damage from it) are therefore "targets", invalidating the "One Target" criteria of Twinned Spell.
I tend to disagree, stating that the spell is to grant someone the Dragon's Breath ability, and therefore the "target" of the spell is the creature the caster touches to grant that ability to.
In general, everything on this is going to come to individual DM's rulings. The fact that the Sage Advice Compendium states "If the two of you are curious about our design intent, here is the list of things that disqualify a spell for us:" seems to indicate that this is a "ruling", not a "rule."
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).
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.
The reason some are saying that Dragon's Breath should not be allowed to be Twinned is because before the end of its duration it can affect multiple "targets".
This is where the debate comes in. Some are saying (and it seems like JC and Sage Advice advise in this way as well) that any creature affected by the spell (i.e. that have to make a saving throw against it or take damage from it) are therefore "targets", invalidating the "One Target" criteria of Twinned Spell.
I tend to disagree, stating that the spell is to grant someone the Dragon's Breath ability, and therefore the "target" of the spell is the creature the caster touches to grant that ability to.
In general, everything on this is going to come to individual DM's rulings. The fact that the Sage Advice Compendium states "If the two of you are curious about our design intent, here is the list of things that disqualify a spell for us:" seems to indicate that this is a "ruling", not a "rule."
Thank you for your statements in this thread. Your position seems reasonable and in line with The JC's posts. the only part I might disagree is where you say its a "ruling." I think terms establish it quite well.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
intent has little to do with it. even fun is not relevant. speculating on why the designers did or did not errata something is unhelpful in many instances(even though I enjoy RAI speculation).
understanding the laid out principles allows consistent communication and rulings(although sometimes there are multiple different rulings) across the community. .
now we have a statement that itself isn't speculation but is directly from the the JC. https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/897549515984654338 this clearly shows a point of origin is one type of target and the creatures and objects inside are also possible targets of a different category.
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/wolfgang-baur-girl-scouts-midgard this is a podcast where JC talks about targeting in it. Basically every one affected by the spell is a target.
in the instance of dragons breath the "spell" does not target. the creature making the breath attack is targeting. the creature is causing the effect even though it was granted by a spell.
Would a character, under the effect of sanctuary,casting magic weapon loose sanctuary if the magic weapon was used by an ally to attack? No the caster of magic weapon never affected an enemy.
Link not working for me.
sorry don't know what happened. DND beyond changed the link. https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/897549515984654338
Well, I don't think that pertains very well to the topic, because that thread is talking about Area of Effect spells like Fireball where the target is a "point", but I'll save everyone the trouble and just put this on here:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/can-i-use-twinned-spell-on-ice-knife/
JC on Sage Advice, when asked if Ice Knife can be twinned, simply says "No." When asked for clarification, he says "Because it can affect more than one creature."
So according to JC, the answer is no, Ice Knife cannot be Twinned..
However, honestly, I really don't care. It doesn't make sense to me that it would be that way according to the wording of the "Twinned Spell" Metamagic and how spells are worded about what a "target" is. But I guess this is going to be one of those things where you either agree or don't. I don't think there is a right answer here. There's assuredly JC's opinion, however he's not the only person at Wizards, and if it was that big of a deal they have had time and opportunity to fix the wording and they haven't, so this is probably a case of "rulings, not rules" and honestly, I see no problem with allowing my player's sorcerer to Twin Dragon's Breath and Ice Knife and, hell, even Chaos Bolt. It's not overpowered as far as I can see, and it makes sense to me, the DM, so I guess that's good enough for me.
It doespertain because it all justifies jc's statement. If something is affected you are a target. Secondary effects and primary ones are both targets. Objects and locations. Are all targets.
Apparently I wasn't clear enough in meaning.
If you read my comment immediately previous to the one you replied to, I think it should be clear what intent has to do with.
To say it again in a short manner: targeting is all about intent. According to all definitions we do have, something is not a target just because it was affected, it must have been chosen to be a target. 5e however has no independent definition for the word target, so we must rely on example; some of which follow the definitions for the word, some of which violate it, instead treating the recipient of an effect as a target, whether or not they were chosen. Because we have conflicting uses of the word, we must go case-by-case, looking at the specific wording of the thing in question.
In this case, Ice Knife is explicit in distinguishing between the target and other creatures.
As for Crawford's statements: He has given contradictory answers, he has just repeated the text in question (a non-answer), he has even seemingly mocked the questioner at times; simply put, he is not a reliable source for meaning. Heck, unless he himself wrote a vast majority of 5e, then he has been answering on behalf of those who did write rules, with no guarantee that he even consults them first. Given his above issues with answering, I cannot trust him at all as a source, on any level.
"To be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level."
There is no allowance for until in Twinnable spells. Either the spell is capable of targeting multiple creatures, or it isn't.
Are there any examples of a affected creature/object explicitly not being a target? That would give a RAW backing to this view. Otherwise, there could just be explicit targets & implicit targets, like with Fireball.
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).
I see now what you mean by intent but I mostly disagree. I don't think it is a good mechanical qualifier. there are spells and abilities that could "remove intent." people could argue whether or not picking an area is picking the targets inside. by saying intent is the main determining factor you are still left with as many or more questions.
As for JC statements I have seen no contradiction in regards to targets. He however does not explain the full implications of his statements so they appear nebulous and vague.
There is such a thing as context targets. for one effect there is a target and other creatures. but for the second set of targets both groups are included. The term other is right for one effect and there is a second effect as well. separate events but all part of the same spell. the second target group is dependent on them being the "other within 5ft" of the first target. so they are both "other" and "targets" at the same time.
We do have a definition of target.......... its in the dictionary https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/target
some notable Parts
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
Verb 2. to direct or use toward a target{ AKA something or someone to be affected by an action or development}
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.
Yes you have the correct meaning from your quoted text.
The SAC provides the design intent of Twinned Spell - so it clarifies how to apply the word "target" in the Twinned Spell description.
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.
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?
I may have missed it but what is the impact of Twinned spell Dragon's Breath? What is the cause that is should not be allowed to be Twinned?
The cause that Dragon's Breath should not be allowed to be Twinned is that because the target of the spell (the creature granted the breath) can use said breath against other creatures, then the spell can target multiple creatures. Even though anyone with any sense or reading comprehension understands this not to be the case.
Keep in mind, technically the spell Haste (among others) works exactly the same as Dragon's Breath (grants something to 1 creature, which can be used against others).
Basically, we have 2 problems: 1- that apparently no-one of final authority in WOTC understood what the word 'target' means, leading to its misuse in the rules; and 2- that those same authorities cannot be bothered to make sure the language (right or wrong) is consistent and explained.
BKThomson,
The reason some are saying that Dragon's Breath should not be allowed to be Twinned is because before the end of its duration it can affect multiple "targets".
This is where the debate comes in. Some are saying (and it seems like JC and Sage Advice advise in this way as well) that any creature affected by the spell (i.e. that have to make a saving throw against it or take damage from it) are therefore "targets", invalidating the "One Target" criteria of Twinned Spell.
I tend to disagree, stating that the spell is to grant someone the Dragon's Breath ability, and therefore the "target" of the spell is the creature the caster touches to grant that ability to.
In general, everything on this is going to come to individual DM's rulings. The fact that the Sage Advice Compendium states "If the two of you are curious about our design intent, here is the list of things that disqualify a spell for us:" seems to indicate that this is a "ruling", not a "rule."
First of all, that is a dictionary definition not the rules. As I said, the rules have no independent definition for the word target.
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).
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.
Thank you for your statements in this thread. Your position seems reasonable and in line with The JC's posts. the only part I might disagree is where you say its a "ruling." I think terms establish it quite well.
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.