Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
No you are incorrect. Rules as written, The first creature gets targeted. Then another creature or the first creature gets targeted, then another creature or the first or the second gets targeted. The question on who gets targeted by the bonus action is a fair argument though. This I understand.
Yes but no. You resolve each ray sequentially, but it doesn't matter.
If you rule that the Bonus Action can be used after the first ray, that's fine; you target a second creature with an extra ray and the further rays must target the original creature or be lost. However, technically, you have not resolved the spell affecting only one creature until all eligible rays have been resolved. As such, if the Eldritch Blast can normally fire 3 rays, the Bonus Action should be the 4th ray.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
"The additional target is another ray"
Well, that makes no sense at all. You are so determined to be right that you're just throwing nonsense against the wall hoping something sticks. A "ray" is not a target
The targets in this scenario are the creature in the crosshairs of the initial EB, and the creature that would be hit by the Bonus Action EB (if the DM rules that's possible). Not the "rays", which would be the EB beams in this scenario. Unless you just really have it out for people named Ray
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
What are you talking about?
Eldritch Blast creates 1 to 4 beams. Rays is old term, but it's essentially the same thing. Each beam has a distinct target that may or may not be different from the other beams. It is the targets of the beams that determines the targets of the spell. To get one additional target, you must create one additional beam.
Your supposed issue is a nonissue; it's fabricated.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
But bonus actions are resolved before the action. So first you use your bonus action, which states what id does, and then you do.
Your wording is slightly wrong. You do not get "additional targets". You only ever get one target per "ray", but what you really mean is attack role. You get additional rays or additional attack roles. Each one only ever gets one target. Whenver you speak on about how many targets you get, it is based on how many attack rolls you get or AOE. So if I roll an attack role once, but can hit two targets, now I have an additional target. If I have to roll a second time to hit another target, I do not get an additional target, I only got one target, which was different from the first target, from the same cantrip.
It's not exactly like that:
And the timing in this case is not defined, so IMO you can technically choose to use Dual Target in the middle of the main Action (e.g. Magic Action) or at the end of it.
Hey, don't get mad at me because you made a poor word choice while trying to make a RAW argument
There ya go
Now let's see the actual rules text we're dealing with. They were already quoted in the thread, but a refresher's probably a good idea
As you yourself just said, "Each beam has a distinct target that may or may not be different from the other beams. It is the targets of the beams that determines the targets of the spell."
So if you cast EB at 11th level and target one creature with three beams, you still have only one target
If you then use your Bonus Action to target a second creature... hmm. Strict RAW, there's nothing in the feat to indicate what you're targeting them with. It doesn't actually even say to duplicate the cantrip's effects in any way at all. Just that the second target must be within the range of the cantrip. Dassit. Compare it to 2014 Twinned -- and this time, I am making a comparison that's more than just vibes
Nothing in Dual Target even says the second target is hit with the same spell. Which is a wee bit of an oversight
Now, we can make some assumptions. The feature is called Dual Target, so we can assume it's the same cantrip with the same effect lobbed at a second target. If that cantrip is fire bolt, easy peasy off you go. If the cantrip is true strike, well, enjoy getting two melee attacks per turn with your greatsword a level earlier than your party's fighter does, I guess
If the cantrip is eldritch blast, though, suddenly we have to make even more assumptions. Your assumption is that you only get one additional beam. One target = one beam, and you cited 2024 Twinned Spell as a somewhat awkward but ultimately fairly balanced reference point. OP's assumption was that you get three beams to fire at the second target, because in this casting, you've already established that one target = three beams. Neither of you actually have anything RAW you can point to that supports your position, mind you -- it's just what you think makes sense in your head
My suggestion was to not allow any spell that requires a second set of assumptions into the mix at all, mainly because it's a poorly written feat from a third party and that would be the simplest solution for DMs. You, for some reason, seemed to take that as me saying your interpretation was wrong, even though at no point did I do so. Seriously, chill already
NONE OF US have any RAW backing for our interpretations though, because again, it's a poorly written feat from a third party
In fact, you could read that feat and come to a fourth conclusion -- that you only get the original three beams from the 11th-level casting of EB, but now you can use a Bonus Action to pick a second target for one or more of those beams. Would that mean the feat has basically no effect at all in that scenario? Yup. Is it entirely consistent with the RAW here? Also yup, even if completely ignores RAI and common sense. Are there any cantrips out there with multiple attacks against a single target that this interpretation would be useful on? Not that I can think of. Still, it's consistent with the RAW -- and the RAW on this feat is only that you cast a cantrip that has one target, then use a Bonus Action to pick a second target in the same range
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You seem to be confusing the targets of the beam with the target of the spell. The Spell has 1 to 4 targets, depending on level. The method by which the spell targets creatures is the beams it produces. In the case of other spells, the spell will define how you decide the spell targets. In some cases, that's all creatures in an area of effect, the creatures you choose in an area of effect, one or more creatures in range, or something else. Sometimes the spell effect does not target creatures. There are general trends but each spell defines the target or targets of the spell.
I'm not mad. I am just confused because your argument doesn't make any sense. I didn't make a poor word choice, "ray" may not have been the correct word, but it was clear that I was referring to the Eldritch Blast beams and you are inventing problems that don't exist.
Each Beam has a distinct target. Yes, that is correct. The collection of those targets define the target of the spell. The spell targets via beams. You expend a Bonus Action and fire an additional beam.
That's right. It must be targeting the second creature with a banana. When reading English, understanding the context of the statement is important. The feat provides you with nothing other than the original spell. It never provides you the ability to cast a second spell. It doesn't allow you to make a weapon attack. There is no room for another interpretation.
It's nice that Twinned Spell specified, but it was unnecessary.
The name is not a mechanic. It can be called Shoot Everything At Everyone behave exactly the same. Your assumptions may be the problem here.
Don't make any assumptions about my opinion or mood. I enjoy a discussion of RAW and RAI. Your arguments have flaws, and I am pointing that out. Don't take it as a personal attack. The writing is fine. I can't speak for the word count and what kind of potential crunch they may have been facing, but "with the same spell" was unnecessary in Twinned Spell in 2014 and it is unnecessary here. If they had word count issues, it was an easy cut.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I'm not sure I see the need for any assumptions tbh. The feature doesn't say that you cast the spell again, it says that you add another target. And the spell effect of both those spells are quite clear on what happens to a target, EB = "On a hit, the target takes 1d10 Force damage" and "On a hit, the target takes 1d10 Fire damage".
Fire Bolt even has another clear instruction "Make a ranged spell attack against the target" (EB is somewhat lacking here because the designers hate uniform language).
I'd say that this cantrip is a bit more problematic as it has a range of "self". Being doubly targeted by a "self" spell just re-applies the spell to no effect before you come to the spell effect part where you make an attack.
All in all I'd say that this feature is closer to the 2024 Twinned Spell metamagic then the 2014 one.
A hit with what? Dual Target doesn't say make another attack roll. It only says you can add a target as a Bonus Action. Mechanically, what does that mean? Do you make a second attack roll? Use the first attack roll against the second target's AC?
2024 Twinned works because it's using the built-in rules of the spells themselves. This thing doesn't. fire bolt has no way on its own to add a second target, so just saying "add a second target" isn't enough to tell you what happens when you do
Here's another somewhat vaguely similar feature -- 2014 Rune Knight's Cloud Rune. Note the specificity in explaining what happens when you change targets. Dual Target needs that sort of specificity
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
What does a spell do per target? Do that one more time. It's that simple.
This is completely off topic for the discussion. A completely unique effect describes how the effect works. This is not relevant here.
Eldritch Blast does say:
So, there is still clear instruction, IMO.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Yes this is true. I should have been more specific. I'll say that most Bonus actions are meant to be taken before your action unless specified or in this case. un specified.
Bonus Actions can be taken any time during the turn unless a specific timing is specified.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
That's true, but the timings of your action, bonus action and reaction aren't supposed to overlap unless specified otherwise, like with Smite.
IMO it's the opposite: Smites have a restriction, other Bonus Actions don't always, so I'm ruling it's legit to overlap. For example: Attack #1, move, Bonus Action (*), move, Attack #2, move.
(*) examples here could be Flurry of Blows or the Heavy Weapon Mastery benefit.
But to be fair, more people think like you (or like me xD): a question about a nick combo I've been thinking to use
From that thread this compilation of discussion about the topic: