This is a spell that has a casting time of 1 hour. Why would they be holding a mace?
A mace is a melee weapon.
your weapon and your ability to wield it effectively can mean the difference between life and death while adventuring.
How is that answer relevant to the question? Yes a mace is a melee weapon, but makes no difference with true resurrection nor it is required in the spellcasting of it.
Oh well, you guys both missed the point. The answer is basically "because he can". The reason why a cleric would do such a thing is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
My original question that I posed was whether or not the cleric would need to have one free hand or two free hands in order to Twin the spell such that he touches two dead creatures. So, if one hand was occupied for any reason, such as because he felt like wielding a mace, the question is would this be possible? I proposed that the creatures could be touched consecutively instead of simultaneously, based on the wording for the Twinned Spell feature, but I feel that it's pretty close and could be open to debate.
You only ever need 1 free hand to cast spell with somatic and/or material component, this regardless of the number of target in the spell's effect following thereafter.
You only ever need 1 free hand to cast spell with somatic and/or material component, this regardless of the number of target in the spell's effect following thereafter.
Agreed, otherwise spells likea 5th level fly would not me able to affect more than 2 targets (at least not unless the caster is a thri-kreen and they came years after the fly spell was written)
Does the twinning effect create a consecutive or a concurrent? It's unspecified in the feature, meaning spell's effect effectively become ''You touch atwo creatures...
Does the spell effect happen one after another or at the same time? Up to DM the spell effect entirely occur within instantaneous duration anyway.
If the effect is consecutive then the casting time would double. If it happened at the same time then no extra casting time. Casting Time never doubles based on number of targets because spellcasting preceeds a spell's effect, which is when targeting occur.
Would a touch require two hands for two targets at the same time? Touch spell don't say it must use hand.
Does the touch also require a free hand for somatic components? One for touching the body and one for casting the spell? Touch spell don't say it must use hand. Somatic component requires a free hand, but its seperate from, and preceeds a spell's effect.
The casting time of true resurrection is one hour. So swinging a mace around night not work well. Taken that with Longer Casting Time you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, there isn't much you could do with a mace.
If the effect is consecutive then the casting time would double. If it happened at the same time then no extra casting time.
Nah, the effect is separate from the casting of the spell and in the case of Twinning, the spell has already been cast -- you're just choosing an additional target.
Twinned Spell cannot be applied to anything that targets more than a single, solitary creature. So this precludes:
Anything that targets multiple creatures
Anything that targets creatures and/or objects (including affecting worn/carried objects)
Anything that targets a point
Anything that target something other than a single creature (such as a surface, a location, a spell effect etc).
Now, it's categorically established by the rules that a dead creature is an object
Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any objectyou can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.
and objects and creatures are mutually exclusive categories.
So anything that describes:
A dead creature
A creature that has died
A creature that is dead
A deceased creature
An ex-creature
A creature that has shuffled off its mortal coil
Etc etc
Is not describing a Creature (game concept) but an Object. This being the case, that instantly precludes it from being Twin Spell'd.
But let's assume dead creatures are not objects, but still creatures (and how that breaks a lot of the game). Let's look at the wording of True Resurrection:
Range: Touch
You touch a creature that has been dead for no longer than 200 years and that died for any reason except old age.
...
The spell can even provide a new body if the original no longer exists, in which case you must speak the creature's name
So the spell has an alternate targeting option other than the range: touch option, where you speak a name and the creature appears. That means this spell is capable of targeting more than a single creature, because it can target something when there is no longer a creature in existence.
Now, it's categorically established by the rules that a dead creature is an object
Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any objectyou can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.
I'll admit that it's established, but "mentioned in passing in the rules about improvised weapons" doesn't fit my definition of "categorically established".
and objects and creatures are mutually exclusive categories.
Are they?
To the best of my knowledge, there's no formal definition of "creature" at all. (I failed to turn one up with some digging.)
"Object" appears to be defined in the DMG, chapter 8.
And even with definitions, that doesn't necessarily make them mutually exclusive. We'd need either a formal exclusion, or definitions that don't overlap.
And the raise dead spells reliably use "creature" to describe their targets, where they could use "corpse", "dead body" etc.
But let's assume dead creatures are not objects, but still creatures (and how that breaks a lot of the game).
How does it break a lot of the game? Even if they're not objects at all, what does it matter? (And I think there's a much stronger mechanical case for them being both.)
It would allow twinning of raise dead spells, but you need multiple bodies, and a divine soul or multiclass sorcerer, and it just saves you the material components and time. Cute trick, but not really gamebreaking.
To me when you cast true resurrection on a creature dead, wether you touch it to restore it to life or speak the creature's name and provide a new body for it if the original no longer exists, making the creature then appears, it is still targeting 1 creature at base. The spell always refer to it's target in singular fashion as a/the creature.
Now, it's categorically established by the rules that a dead creature is an object
Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any objectyou can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.
I'll admit that it's established, but "mentioned in passing in the rules about improvised weapons" doesn't fit my definition of "categorically established".
Agreed. This is another example in the rules where a specific rule about something else is making a reference to a general rule that doesn't exist.
It's possible that there was a series of rules about exactly what happens to dead creatures mechanically at some point during playtesting and then those were removed and then the designers forgot to replace them with something -- because this remains mostly undefined.
But let's assume dead creatures are not objects, but still creatures (and how that breaks a lot of the game). Let's look at the wording of True Resurrection:
Range: Touch
You touch a creature that has been dead for no longer than 200 years and that died for any reason except old age.
...
The spell can even provide a new body if the original no longer exists, in which case you must speak the creature's name
So the spell has an alternate targeting option other than the range: touch option, where you speak a name and the creature appears. That means this spell is capable of targeting more than a single creature, because it can target something when there is no longer a creature in existence.
Therefore it is precluded from being Twinned
This actually can't be correct. One of the most fundamental general rules of spellcasting is this:
Range
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range.
The Range of the True Resurrection spell is Touch. There cannot be an alternate targeting option beyond this range.
Also, the phrase "The spell can even provide a new body if the original no longer exists" does NOT mean that the creature no longer exists, as indicated by the lore from the DMG about what happens to the soul of the creature when it is separated from the creature's body. Even if the body is destroyed and the soul is elsewhere, the creature exists and it has a location (not well defined when the body is destroyed or scattered), which must be within Touch range to successfully cast this spell on it. None of this breaks any of the rules for Twinning a spell.
I’ve heard some say the revivify/resurrection spells can’t be twinned because the targets are no longer considered creatures if they are dead.
Newly-dead corpses are interesting because they contain descriptive elements of both objects and creatures. By the strictest reading, you could consider a corpse an object, but doing so would effectively invalidate all resurrection spells. For my part, I would say you could twin true resurrection...at least until the new PHB comes out.
Just a quick question ... but what makes you say the bolded part. Why would a dead creature being an object invalidate the resurrection spells? In general, spells can target objects, creatures or a point in space ... if "dead creature" is an object and the spell says the target is a "dead creature" then I don't see anything that is invalidated by that reading.
The Range of the True Resurrection spell is Touch. There cannot be an alternate targeting option beyond this range.
Also, the phrase "The spell can even provide a new body if the original no longer exists" does NOT mean that the creature no longer exists, as indicated by the lore from the DMG about what happens to the soul of the creature when it is separated from the creature's body. Even if the body is destroyed and the soul is elsewhere, the creature exists and it has a location (not well defined when the body is destroyed or scattered), which must be within Touch range to successfully cast this spell on it. None of this breaks any of the rules for Twinning a spell.
The spells says the following:
"The spell can even provide a new body if the original no longer exists, in which case you must speak the creature's name. The creature then appears in an unoccupied space you choose within 10 feet of you."
The spell also says that it has a range of touch.
Does this mean that the creature's name must be within a range of touch?
Of course not.
There are two general rules that need to be kept in mind - the rules do what they say they do AND specific beats general. In general a touch spell requires a target within a range of touch. In general, a spell must target a creature, an object or a point in space.
However, true resurrection (like many other spells and effects in the D&D rules where a specific statement over rides the general rule) has an additional available target when casting, you can simply speak the creature's name and a body is provided by the magic of the spell. Period.
Statements stating "There cannot be an alternate targeting option beyond this range" are simply incorrect. There can be such options if the spell specifically lists such options.
"Specific Beats General
This compendium contains rules that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
Exceptions to the rules are often minor. For instance, many adventurers don’t have proficiency with longbows, but every wood elf does because of a racial trait. That trait creates a minor exception in the game. Other examples of rule-breaking are more conspicuous. For instance, an adventurer can’t normally pass through walls, but some spells make that possible. Magic accounts for most of the major exceptions to the rules."
The alternate targeting options for True Resurrection are clearly a case of specific beats general. You only have to state what the creature's name was. No requirement for being within a range of touch.
P.S. Arguing about souls, bodies and whether a creature still exists if its body has been destroyed and its soul sent to another plane is quite beyond the scope of the D&D rules and entirely up to the DM so claiming that just because a soul may still exist means that the creature still exists even though its body does not is a bit too philosophical and entirely at the DMs discretion.
However, true resurrection (like many other spells and effects in the D&D rules where a specific statement over rides the general rule) has an additional available target when casting, you can simply speak the creature's name and a body is provided by the magic of the spell. Period.
No, it doesn't. No period. There's nothing additionally available about the targeting here. Let's look again:
The spell can even provide a new body if the original no longer exists, in which case you must speak the creature's name.
This is a continuation of a previous thought. The spell can even do something that you might not expect. The targeting remains the same, the spellcasting remains the same, but the spell can evenprovide a new body. This new body is provided. You are still targeting "a creature that has been dead for no longer than 200 years and that died for any reason except old age." There is still the consideration of "If the creature's soul is free and willing" and so on.
To do this, you target a creature that is located within range, but in the effect, instead of reaching out and touching the body, you speak the creature's name instead. That's the only difference.
It's not super well defined by the game where the location of the creature is if the body has been destroyed or desecrated or cremated or vaporized or disintegrated or whatever. A DM might rule that the creature is located at the last known location of the body -- the body's grave, or the site of the cremation or perhaps the location on the battlefield where the creature was hit by a disintegration spell, even if the fine gray dust has long since been blown and washed away by the wind and rain. But wherever it is, it must be within range.
This compendium contains rules that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
Exceptions to the rules are often minor. For instance, many adventurers don’t have proficiency with longbows, but every wood elf does because of a racial trait. That trait creates a minor exception in the game. Other examples of rule-breaking are more conspicuous. For instance, an adventurer can’t normally pass through walls, but some spells make that possible. Magic accounts for most of the major exceptions to the rules."
The alternate targeting options for True Resurrection are clearly a case of specific beats general. You only have to state what the creature's name was. No requirement for being within a range of touch.
A lot of people seem to apply the specific beats general rule incorrectly. This rule only comes into play when a specific rule contradicts a general rule.
You don't just ignore the range that is listed for a spell because you feel like it. In order for the general rule for spell ranges to be overridden, the spell description must explicitly describe this. An example of this which came up in a recent thread was the spell Chain Lightning, which describes targeting a creature or object within range and then picking 3 additional targets within 30 feet of that target, which of course can be outside of the spell's range. This is how you explicitly contradict and override a rule.
True Resurrection doesn't do anything like this. True Resurrection is NOT an example of specific beats general when it comes to the rules for the range of a spell.
All it says is that instead of touching a body you can speak a name. That has absolutely nothing to do with overriding the spell's range.
Twinned Spell cannot be applied to anything that targets more than a single, solitary creature. So this precludes:
Anything that targets creatures and/or objects (including affecting worn/carried objects)
I'd like to see a source on this. I've never seen a ruling that states spell like fire bolt can't be Twinned, for instance, provided it is only being used to target creatures
Twinned Spell says nothing about objects at all, in fact. The listed restriction is that the spell cannot target more than one creature. Whether it can target objects is immaterial
Twinned Spell
When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn’t have a range of self, you can spend a number of sorcery points equal to the spell’s level to target a second creature in range with the same spell (1 sorcery point if the spell is a cantrip).
To be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level.For example, magic missile and scorching ray aren’t eligible, but ray of frost and chromatic orb are.
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
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
"The spell can even provide a new body if the original no longer exists, in which case you must speak the creature's name. The creature then appears in an unoccupied space you choose within 10 feet of you."
The spell also says that it has a range of touch.
Does this mean that the creature's name must be within a range of touch?
Of course not.
There are two general rules that need to be kept in mind - the rules do what they say they do AND specific beats general. In general a touch spell requires a target within a range of touch. In general, a spell must target a creature, an object or a point in space.
However, true resurrection (like many other spells and effects in the D&D rules where a specific statement over rides the general rule) has an additional available target when casting, you can simply speak the creature's name and a body is provided by the magic of the spell. Period.
Statements stating "There cannot be an alternate targeting option beyond this range" are simply incorrect. There can be such options if the spell specifically lists such options.
I agree 100% with you, true resurrection contains a specific rule that trump general rules on spell's range and targeting if the body no longer exist.
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
Even within that entry in the SAC, they make it clear they're referring to RAI ("curious about our design intent"), not RAW
There's nothing in the actual RAW of Twinned Spell that would preclude a spell that is capable of targeting an object. You just can't target an object with it if you're Twinning it
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
As for Touch range and the no body clause. I always figured you had to touch the new body the spell provided to have it all work right.
Like, you speak the name while casting. New body is made. You touch it like you would any other already-dead body you wanted to true resurrection.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A mace is a melee weapon.
How is that answer relevant to the question? Yes a mace is a melee weapon, but makes no difference with true resurrection nor it is required in the spellcasting of it.
Oh well, you guys both missed the point. The answer is basically "because he can". The reason why a cleric would do such a thing is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
My original question that I posed was whether or not the cleric would need to have one free hand or two free hands in order to Twin the spell such that he touches two dead creatures. So, if one hand was occupied for any reason, such as because he felt like wielding a mace, the question is would this be possible? I proposed that the creatures could be touched consecutively instead of simultaneously, based on the wording for the Twinned Spell feature, but I feel that it's pretty close and could be open to debate.
You only ever need 1 free hand to cast spell with somatic and/or material component, this regardless of the number of target in the spell's effect following thereafter.
Does the twinning effect create a consecutive or a concurrent? Does the spell effect happen one after another or at the same time?
If the effect is consecutive then the casting time would double. If it happened at the same time then no extra casting time.
Would a touch require two hands for two targets at the same time?
Does the touch also require a free hand for somatic components? One for touching the body and one for casting the spell?
The casting time of true resurrection is one hour. So swinging a mace around night not work well.
Agreed, otherwise spells likea 5th level fly would not me able to affect more than 2 targets (at least not unless the caster is a thri-kreen and they came years after the fly spell was written)
Bold answer's mine.
Nah, the effect is separate from the casting of the spell and in the case of Twinning, the spell has already been cast -- you're just choosing an additional target.
Twinned Spell cannot be applied to anything that targets more than a single, solitary creature. So this precludes:
Now, it's categorically established by the rules that a dead creature is an object
and objects and creatures are mutually exclusive categories.
So anything that describes:
Is not describing a Creature (game concept) but an Object. This being the case, that instantly precludes it from being Twin Spell'd.
But let's assume dead creatures are not objects, but still creatures (and how that breaks a lot of the game). Let's look at the wording of True Resurrection:
So the spell has an alternate targeting option other than the range: touch option, where you speak a name and the creature appears. That means this spell is capable of targeting more than a single creature, because it can target something when there is no longer a creature in existence.
Therefore it is precluded from being Twinned
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I'll admit that it's established, but "mentioned in passing in the rules about improvised weapons" doesn't fit my definition of "categorically established".
Are they?
To the best of my knowledge, there's no formal definition of "creature" at all. (I failed to turn one up with some digging.)
"Object" appears to be defined in the DMG, chapter 8.
And even with definitions, that doesn't necessarily make them mutually exclusive. We'd need either a formal exclusion, or definitions that don't overlap.
And the raise dead spells reliably use "creature" to describe their targets, where they could use "corpse", "dead body" etc.
How does it break a lot of the game? Even if they're not objects at all, what does it matter? (And I think there's a much stronger mechanical case for them being both.)
It would allow twinning of raise dead spells, but you need multiple bodies, and a divine soul or multiclass sorcerer, and it just saves you the material components and time. Cute trick, but not really gamebreaking.
To me when you cast true resurrection on a creature dead, wether you touch it to restore it to life or speak the creature's name and provide a new body for it if the original no longer exists, making the creature then appears, it is still targeting 1 creature at base. The spell always refer to it's target in singular fashion as a/the creature.
Agreed. This is another example in the rules where a specific rule about something else is making a reference to a general rule that doesn't exist.
It's possible that there was a series of rules about exactly what happens to dead creatures mechanically at some point during playtesting and then those were removed and then the designers forgot to replace them with something -- because this remains mostly undefined.
This actually can't be correct. One of the most fundamental general rules of spellcasting is this:
The Range of the True Resurrection spell is Touch. There cannot be an alternate targeting option beyond this range.
Also, the phrase "The spell can even provide a new body if the original no longer exists" does NOT mean that the creature no longer exists, as indicated by the lore from the DMG about what happens to the soul of the creature when it is separated from the creature's body. Even if the body is destroyed and the soul is elsewhere, the creature exists and it has a location (not well defined when the body is destroyed or scattered), which must be within Touch range to successfully cast this spell on it. None of this breaks any of the rules for Twinning a spell.
Just a quick question ... but what makes you say the bolded part. Why would a dead creature being an object invalidate the resurrection spells? In general, spells can target objects, creatures or a point in space ... if "dead creature" is an object and the spell says the target is a "dead creature" then I don't see anything that is invalidated by that reading.
The spells says the following:
"The spell can even provide a new body if the original no longer exists, in which case you must speak the creature's name. The creature then appears in an unoccupied space you choose within 10 feet of you."
The spell also says that it has a range of touch.
Does this mean that the creature's name must be within a range of touch?
Of course not.
There are two general rules that need to be kept in mind - the rules do what they say they do AND specific beats general. In general a touch spell requires a target within a range of touch. In general, a spell must target a creature, an object or a point in space.
However, true resurrection (like many other spells and effects in the D&D rules where a specific statement over rides the general rule) has an additional available target when casting, you can simply speak the creature's name and a body is provided by the magic of the spell. Period.
Statements stating "There cannot be an alternate targeting option beyond this range" are simply incorrect. There can be such options if the spell specifically lists such options.
"Specific Beats General
This compendium contains rules that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
Exceptions to the rules are often minor. For instance, many adventurers don’t have proficiency with longbows, but every wood elf does because of a racial trait. That trait creates a minor exception in the game. Other examples of rule-breaking are more conspicuous. For instance, an adventurer can’t normally pass through walls, but some spells make that possible. Magic accounts for most of the major exceptions to the rules."
The alternate targeting options for True Resurrection are clearly a case of specific beats general. You only have to state what the creature's name was. No requirement for being within a range of touch.
P.S. Arguing about souls, bodies and whether a creature still exists if its body has been destroyed and its soul sent to another plane is quite beyond the scope of the D&D rules and entirely up to the DM so claiming that just because a soul may still exist means that the creature still exists even though its body does not is a bit too philosophical and entirely at the DMs discretion.
The creature's name is not the target of the spell.
No, it doesn't. No period. There's nothing additionally available about the targeting here. Let's look again:
This is a continuation of a previous thought. The spell can even do something that you might not expect. The targeting remains the same, the spellcasting remains the same, but the spell can even provide a new body. This new body is provided. You are still targeting "a creature that has been dead for no longer than 200 years and that died for any reason except old age." There is still the consideration of "If the creature's soul is free and willing" and so on.
To do this, you target a creature that is located within range, but in the effect, instead of reaching out and touching the body, you speak the creature's name instead. That's the only difference.
It's not super well defined by the game where the location of the creature is if the body has been destroyed or desecrated or cremated or vaporized or disintegrated or whatever. A DM might rule that the creature is located at the last known location of the body -- the body's grave, or the site of the cremation or perhaps the location on the battlefield where the creature was hit by a disintegration spell, even if the fine gray dust has long since been blown and washed away by the wind and rain. But wherever it is, it must be within range.
A lot of people seem to apply the specific beats general rule incorrectly. This rule only comes into play when a specific rule contradicts a general rule.
You don't just ignore the range that is listed for a spell because you feel like it. In order for the general rule for spell ranges to be overridden, the spell description must explicitly describe this. An example of this which came up in a recent thread was the spell Chain Lightning, which describes targeting a creature or object within range and then picking 3 additional targets within 30 feet of that target, which of course can be outside of the spell's range. This is how you explicitly contradict and override a rule.
True Resurrection doesn't do anything like this. True Resurrection is NOT an example of specific beats general when it comes to the rules for the range of a spell.
All it says is that instead of touching a body you can speak a name. That has absolutely nothing to do with overriding the spell's range.
I'd like to see a source on this. I've never seen a ruling that states spell like fire bolt can't be Twinned, for instance, provided it is only being used to target creatures
Twinned Spell says nothing about objects at all, in fact. The listed restriction is that the spell cannot target more than one creature. Whether it can target objects is immaterial
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The Twinned Spell Metamagic strictly refers to spells that target a creature and not object, which is also mentioned in Sage Advice Compendium
I agree 100% with you, true resurrection contains a specific rule that trump general rules on spell's range and targeting if the body no longer exist.
Even within that entry in the SAC, they make it clear they're referring to RAI ("curious about our design intent"), not RAW
There's nothing in the actual RAW of Twinned Spell that would preclude a spell that is capable of targeting an object. You just can't target an object with it if you're Twinning it
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
As for Touch range and the no body clause. I always figured you had to touch the new body the spell provided to have it all work right.
Like, you speak the name while casting. New body is made. You touch it like you would any other already-dead body you wanted to true resurrection.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.