As for chromatic orb, I'd rule it's not Twinnable, since the point of the upcast is the extra damage
I'd allow it for grasping vine though, since the point of the upcast is to allow additional creatures to be affected
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Nope. Scorching Ray creates an extra ray but doesn't specify that it must be used to target an additional creature. Those are the only spells eligible for Twinned Spell.
I'd be ok with allowing the Twinned Spell metamagic for spells such as Scorching Ray and Magic Missile, but I don't feel too strongly about it.
On the other hand, if the DM determines that the spell must have the exact wording that is used in the Charm Person spell for the upcast, it wouldn't be quite as restrictive as I would have thought. Upon skimming through the list of spells in the Basic Rules, there are still 19 spells that would definitely qualify along with two maybes (Animate Dead and Command). Although, among these, only 12 of them appear on the Sorcerer Spell List. So, this is still quite a heavily restrictive interpretation but it's not totally unusable.
Nope. Scorching Ray creates an extra ray but doesn't specify that it must be used to target an additional creature. Those are the only spells eligible for Twinned Spell.
But Twinned Spell doesn't say that it has to target an additional creature. It says it applies to spells "that can be cast with a higher-level spell slot to target an additional creature". Scorching Raycan be cast with a higher-level spell slot to target an additional creature.
Nope. Scorching Ray creates an extra ray but doesn't specify that it must be used to target an additional creature. Those are the only spells eligible for Twinned Spell.
But Twinned Spell doesn't say that it has to target an additional creature. It says it applies to spells "that can be cast with a higher-level spell slot to target an additional creature". Scorching Raycan be cast with a higher-level spell slot to target an additional creature.
That's not the function of Scorching Ray. You're reading too much into the possibilities. Twinned Spell 2024 operates only on spells that state you can cast at a higher level to target an additional creature. See Hold Person as a perfect example.
Twinned Spell 2024 operates only on spells that state you can cast at a higher level to target an additional creature.
Again, that is not what it actually says. It does not say that the spell has to "state" anything. It says that it applies to spells "that can be cast with a higher-level spell slot to target an additional creature". I think in the absence of any official clarification, it's perfectly fine to rule that Scorching Ray is eligible, since it can be cast with a higher-level spell slot to target an additional creature. That's all.
When you cast a spell, such as Charm Person, that can be cast with a higher-level spell slot to target an additional creature, you can spend 1 Sorcery Point to increase the spell’s effective level by 1.
The exact wording of Twinned Spell is above. It gives a specific example of the type of spell it can apply to in the form of Charm Person. Charm Person's upcasting reads as follows:
Using a Higher-Level Spell Slot. You can target one additional creature for each spell slot level above 1.
Using a Higher-Level Spell Slot. You create one additional ray for each spell slot level above 2.
There's a difference in the wording that invalidates Scorching Ray as an option for Twinned Spell. Twinned Spell doesn't care about the possibility, it cares about the exact way the upcasting works, and the example shows the intent quite clearly. If they wanted it to be eligible on spells like Scorching Ray, they would have stated so.
I think in the absence of any official clarification, it's perfectly fine to rule that Scorching Ray is eligible, since it can be cast with a higher-level spell slot to target an additional creature. That's all.
If you're the DM or your DM is okay with it, go for it. But it's not the RAW interpretation, which is what this forum exists to discuss.
EDIT: Fixed a tooltip (accidentally put the spells tag around Meanwhile up there)
There's a difference in the wording that invalidates Scorching Ray as an option for Twinned Spell. Twinned Spell doesn't care about the possibility, it cares about the exact way the upcasting works, and the example shows the intent quite clearly. If they wanted it to be eligible on spells like Scorching Ray, they would have stated so.
Yes, the two spells' upcast benefits are worded differently. But, again, Twinned Spell doesn't say that it can only be used on spells whose upcast benefits are worded in a specific way.
What you're describing there is what you believe the RAI to be, not what the RAW is. RAW refers to what the rules actually say.
Yes. And while the ray from Scorching Ray could be used to target an additional creature, that doesn't make the upcasting ability of Scorching Ray qualify, as it isn't one that "can be cast with a higher-level spell slot to target an additional creature". Targeting an additional creature is a separate choice to the upcasting.
I lean more on the restrictive side, myself, but I have a question... if you allow twinned to work on spells like scorching ray/magic missile, would you force the sorcerer to choose a different target for the ray/dart? I think if you don't, then you are definitely twisting the wording of Twinned away from a clear RAI.
There's a difference in the wording that invalidates Scorching Ray as an option for Twinned Spell. Twinned Spell doesn't care about the possibility, it cares about the exact way the upcasting works, and the example shows the intent quite clearly. If they wanted it to be eligible on spells like Scorching Ray, they would have stated so.
Yes, the two spells' upcast benefits are worded differently. But, again, Twinned Spell doesn't say that it can only be used on spells whose upcast benefits are worded in a specific way.
What you're describing there is what you believe the RAI to be, not what the RAW is. RAW refers to what the rules actually say.
I agree that it is an interpretation, but part of that is because language is imprecise and we are forced to make interpretations. You, yourself, are making an interpretation that 'can be cast with a higher-level spell slot to target an additional creature' means a certain thing.
From an absolutely grammatical standpoint, I'm not sure your interpretation is a correct one. Scorching Ray allows you to upcast it to have the potential to target another creature (because you created another ray), but the requirement, at least to me, appears to want a more direct connection. It appears to be designed for a specific subset of spells, that being those where the wording is 'you can target X additional creature(s) for each level above Y'.
It is not enough that Scorching Ray creates the possibility. Scorching Ray would have to mandate the attack occur on a new creature. Otherwise the wording for Twin Spell should have been along the lines of 'higher-level spell slot to allow an additional creature to be targeted'.
Now, does that mean that is unequivocally what the designer wanted? Absolutely not. The tipping point of that grammar is so fine that it is completely possible that they meant things like Scorching Ray could also be twinned and they simply worded it badly.
There's a difference in the wording that invalidates Scorching Ray as an option for Twinned Spell. Twinned Spell doesn't care about the possibility, it cares about the exact way the upcasting works, and the example shows the intent quite clearly. If they wanted it to be eligible on spells like Scorching Ray, they would have stated so.
Yes, the two spells' upcast benefits are worded differently. But, again, Twinned Spell doesn't say that it can only be used on spells whose upcast benefits are worded in a specific way.
What you're describing there is what you believe the RAI to be, not what the RAW is. RAW refers to what the rules actually say.
I agree that it is an interpretation, but part of that is because language is imprecise and we are forced to make interpretations. You, yourself, are making an interpretation that 'can be cast with a higher-level spell slot to target an additional creature' means a certain thing.
From an absolutely grammatical standpoint, I'm not sure your interpretation is a correct one. Scorching Ray allows you to upcast it to have the potential to target another creature (because you created another ray), but the requirement, at least to me, appears to want a more direct connection. It appears to be designed for a specific subset of spells, that being those where the wording is 'you can target X additional creature(s) for each level above Y'.
It is not enough that Scorching Ray creates the possibility. Scorching Ray would have to mandate the attack occur on a new creature. Otherwise the wording for Twin Spell should have been along the lines of 'higher-level spell slot to allow an additional creature to be targeted'.
Now, does that mean that is unequivocally what the designer wanted? Absolutely not. The tipping point of that grammar is so fine that it is completely possible that they meant things like Scorching Ray could also be twinned and they simply worded it badly.
That’s my point, really - it’s unclear, and acting like one’s own interpretation is the definitive RAW answer is unwise.
Honestly, between it being restricted only to spells that upcast to target exactly one additional creature and the example of Charm Person having that exact wording, it seems pretty clear. Trying to use the most generous possible interpretation is definitely an attempt to game the system to get more out of a feature than it's meant to provide.
There's a difference in the wording that invalidates Scorching Ray as an option for Twinned Spell. Twinned Spell doesn't care about the possibility, it cares about the exact way the upcasting works, and the example shows the intent quite clearly. If they wanted it to be eligible on spells like Scorching Ray, they would have stated so.
Yes, the two spells' upcast benefits are worded differently. But, again, Twinned Spell doesn't say that it can only be used on spells whose upcast benefits are worded in a specific way.
What you're describing there is what you believe the RAI to be, not what the RAW is. RAW refers to what the rules actually say.
I agree that it is an interpretation, but part of that is because language is imprecise and we are forced to make interpretations. You, yourself, are making an interpretation that 'can be cast with a higher-level spell slot to target an additional creature' means a certain thing.
From an absolutely grammatical standpoint, I'm not sure your interpretation is a correct one. Scorching Ray allows you to upcast it to have the potential to target another creature (because you created another ray), but the requirement, at least to me, appears to want a more direct connection. It appears to be designed for a specific subset of spells, that being those where the wording is 'you can target X additional creature(s) for each level above Y'.
It is not enough that Scorching Ray creates the possibility. Scorching Ray would have to mandate the attack occur on a new creature. Otherwise the wording for Twin Spell should have been along the lines of 'higher-level spell slot to allow an additional creature to be targeted'.
Now, does that mean that is unequivocally what the designer wanted? Absolutely not. The tipping point of that grammar is so fine that it is completely possible that they meant things like Scorching Ray could also be twinned and they simply worded it badly.
That’s my point, really - it’s unclear, and acting like one’s own interpretation is the definitive RAW answer is unwise.
Taken in context, I don't think it's that unclear.
- We have the example used in the Metamagic description that makes a direct connection to targeting an additional creature with an upcast. I think esampson's point on "potential to hit" vs "to hit" an additional target is important. - We also have the fact that from a balance perspective, there would be no reason NOT to include many normal damage spells if we allow using twin on scorching ray/magic missile while also allowing them to hit a single creature with all rays/darts (or, at least, not expand to yet another target). - The placement of the "example spell", I think, is important. It doesn't present it as an example after the fact, but as an exemplar of a spell Twin was intended to be used for before it even describes the effect.
From this, I certainly think it's safe to conclude that the intention was for it to allow a caster to target an additional creature for cheaper than spending an upcast slot. If you don't do that (which is possible if you allow Twin on SR/MM), then you've lost the plot. Therefore, the conclusion is that it should only be used on spells with that wording (forcing you to choose another target on upcast).
Honestly, between it being restricted only to spells that upcast to target exactly one additional creature and the example of Charm Person having that exact wording, it seems pretty clear. Trying to use the most generous possible interpretation is definitely an attempt to game the system to get more out of a feature than it's meant to provide.
I will give you 'fairly clear' (and point out I agree with your basic position).
Bending things into a pretzel, using overly generous interpretations (not merely generous, but overly generous) certainly are attempts to game the system, but I would be very hesitant to insist that is what is happening in this case.
It does appear to me that people can make absolutely 'good faith' interpretations that Scorching Ray is covered by Twin Spell because upcasting it allows an extra creature to be Targeted. I disagree with their good faith interpretation, but simply because I disagree does not mean I think it is being made in bad faith. It could very well be that the designer was simply clumsy in wording and in their selection of example and I am the one that, ultimately, am wrong.
End of the day, at my table my interpretation is that Twin Spell doesn't work on Scorching Ray. A player tries to insist and I'm going to gently and kindly point out that it is my job to be the ultimate interpreter and arbitrator of the rules at my table and, in my own good faith interpretation, it doesn't work that way.
If I go to another table and the DM is ruling different I might say 'are you sure you want to interpret it that way?', but beyond that, they are the ultimate interpreter and arbitrator. I've got no right to expect players to respect my rulings if I'm not willing to accept other people's.
(and as a quick nota bene, this doesn't even get into the realm of houserules or homebrew. This is just different interpretations. At the end of the day there is no point in any of us dying on this hill since the DM can ultimately say 'sure, that's how the grammar shakes out. It still doesn't happen that way at this table'.)
To be honest, wagnarokkr's approach could also be a feasible ruling.
I already gave my interpretation on the previous page, so I agree with Athanar, Sabin, or esampson. Still, a clarification in the SAC would be nice, since this question about how to interpret Twin Spell has been debated in several threads and not everyone agrees as if we were Twin Brothers:
As for chromatic orb, I'd rule it's not Twinnable, since the point of the upcast is the extra damage
I'd allow it for grasping vine though, since the point of the upcast is to allow additional creatures to be affected
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Cool, free upcast on scorching ray till an FAQ.
Nope. Scorching Ray creates an extra ray but doesn't specify that it must be used to target an additional creature. Those are the only spells eligible for Twinned Spell.
I'd be ok with allowing the Twinned Spell metamagic for spells such as Scorching Ray and Magic Missile, but I don't feel too strongly about it.
On the other hand, if the DM determines that the spell must have the exact wording that is used in the Charm Person spell for the upcast, it wouldn't be quite as restrictive as I would have thought. Upon skimming through the list of spells in the Basic Rules, there are still 19 spells that would definitely qualify along with two maybes (Animate Dead and Command). Although, among these, only 12 of them appear on the Sorcerer Spell List. So, this is still quite a heavily restrictive interpretation but it's not totally unusable.
But Twinned Spell doesn't say that it has to target an additional creature. It says it applies to spells "that can be cast with a higher-level spell slot to target an additional creature". Scorching Ray can be cast with a higher-level spell slot to target an additional creature.
pronouns: he/she/they
That's not the function of Scorching Ray. You're reading too much into the possibilities. Twinned Spell 2024 operates only on spells that state you can cast at a higher level to target an additional creature. See Hold Person as a perfect example.
Again, that is not what it actually says. It does not say that the spell has to "state" anything. It says that it applies to spells "that can be cast with a higher-level spell slot to target an additional creature". I think in the absence of any official clarification, it's perfectly fine to rule that Scorching Ray is eligible, since it can be cast with a higher-level spell slot to target an additional creature. That's all.
pronouns: he/she/they
The exact wording of Twinned Spell is above. It gives a specific example of the type of spell it can apply to in the form of Charm Person. Charm Person's upcasting reads as follows:
Meanwhile, Scorching Ray reads as follows:
There's a difference in the wording that invalidates Scorching Ray as an option for Twinned Spell. Twinned Spell doesn't care about the possibility, it cares about the exact way the upcasting works, and the example shows the intent quite clearly. If they wanted it to be eligible on spells like Scorching Ray, they would have stated so.
If you're the DM or your DM is okay with it, go for it. But it's not the RAW interpretation, which is what this forum exists to discuss.
EDIT: Fixed a tooltip (accidentally put the spells tag around Meanwhile up there)
Yes, the two spells' upcast benefits are worded differently. But, again, Twinned Spell doesn't say that it can only be used on spells whose upcast benefits are worded in a specific way.
What you're describing there is what you believe the RAI to be, not what the RAW is. RAW refers to what the rules actually say.
pronouns: he/she/they
Yes. And while the ray from Scorching Ray could be used to target an additional creature, that doesn't make the upcasting ability of Scorching Ray qualify, as it isn't one that "can be cast with a higher-level spell slot to target an additional creature". Targeting an additional creature is a separate choice to the upcasting.
I lean more on the restrictive side, myself, but I have a question... if you allow twinned to work on spells like scorching ray/magic missile, would you force the sorcerer to choose a different target for the ray/dart? I think if you don't, then you are definitely twisting the wording of Twinned away from a clear RAI.
I agree that it is an interpretation, but part of that is because language is imprecise and we are forced to make interpretations. You, yourself, are making an interpretation that 'can be cast with a higher-level spell slot to target an additional creature' means a certain thing.
From an absolutely grammatical standpoint, I'm not sure your interpretation is a correct one. Scorching Ray allows you to upcast it to have the potential to target another creature (because you created another ray), but the requirement, at least to me, appears to want a more direct connection. It appears to be designed for a specific subset of spells, that being those where the wording is 'you can target X additional creature(s) for each level above Y'.
It is not enough that Scorching Ray creates the possibility. Scorching Ray would have to mandate the attack occur on a new creature. Otherwise the wording for Twin Spell should have been along the lines of 'higher-level spell slot to allow an additional creature to be targeted'.
Now, does that mean that is unequivocally what the designer wanted? Absolutely not. The tipping point of that grammar is so fine that it is completely possible that they meant things like Scorching Ray could also be twinned and they simply worded it badly.
That’s my point, really - it’s unclear, and acting like one’s own interpretation is the definitive RAW answer is unwise.
pronouns: he/she/they
Honestly, between it being restricted only to spells that upcast to target exactly one additional creature and the example of Charm Person having that exact wording, it seems pretty clear. Trying to use the most generous possible interpretation is definitely an attempt to game the system to get more out of a feature than it's meant to provide.
Taken in context, I don't think it's that unclear.
- We have the example used in the Metamagic description that makes a direct connection to targeting an additional creature with an upcast. I think esampson's point on "potential to hit" vs "to hit" an additional target is important.
- We also have the fact that from a balance perspective, there would be no reason NOT to include many normal damage spells if we allow using twin on scorching ray/magic missile while also allowing them to hit a single creature with all rays/darts (or, at least, not expand to yet another target).
- The placement of the "example spell", I think, is important. It doesn't present it as an example after the fact, but as an exemplar of a spell Twin was intended to be used for before it even describes the effect.
From this, I certainly think it's safe to conclude that the intention was for it to allow a caster to target an additional creature for cheaper than spending an upcast slot. If you don't do that (which is possible if you allow Twin on SR/MM), then you've lost the plot. Therefore, the conclusion is that it should only be used on spells with that wording (forcing you to choose another target on upcast).
I will give you 'fairly clear' (and point out I agree with your basic position).
Bending things into a pretzel, using overly generous interpretations (not merely generous, but overly generous) certainly are attempts to game the system, but I would be very hesitant to insist that is what is happening in this case.
It does appear to me that people can make absolutely 'good faith' interpretations that Scorching Ray is covered by Twin Spell because upcasting it allows an extra creature to be Targeted. I disagree with their good faith interpretation, but simply because I disagree does not mean I think it is being made in bad faith. It could very well be that the designer was simply clumsy in wording and in their selection of example and I am the one that, ultimately, am wrong.
End of the day, at my table my interpretation is that Twin Spell doesn't work on Scorching Ray. A player tries to insist and I'm going to gently and kindly point out that it is my job to be the ultimate interpreter and arbitrator of the rules at my table and, in my own good faith interpretation, it doesn't work that way.
If I go to another table and the DM is ruling different I might say 'are you sure you want to interpret it that way?', but beyond that, they are the ultimate interpreter and arbitrator. I've got no right to expect players to respect my rulings if I'm not willing to accept other people's.
(and as a quick nota bene, this doesn't even get into the realm of houserules or homebrew. This is just different interpretations. At the end of the day there is no point in any of us dying on this hill since the DM can ultimately say 'sure, that's how the grammar shakes out. It still doesn't happen that way at this table'.)
EDIT: for clarity.