"That creature" and "one creature" are still singular, and mean exactly the same thing for the context of War Caster. The difference in language from each statement is not about implicit capability; it is whether an actual target has already implicitly been assigned.
Twinned Spell is phrased from the perspective of complete generality. None of the language is attributable to things that already have an implicit target because nothing is directly occurring. It is telling you that only spells that target "one" creature are eligible because that one creature can be any potential creature.
War Caster is phrased from the perspective of complete specificity. War Caster is only applicable when something specific has already begun to occur. It is telling you that the spell must target only "that" creature because the "one" creature has already been implicitly assigned as the target. It cannot be phrased as "targets only one creature" because the potential scenario is no longer open-ended. Otherwise, that combination of language and context would allow for the target of the spell to be a different creature from the one which provoked the attack. We know that is not the case.
That is critical for the context here because once you are actually using Twinned Spell, you have an implicitly assigned target, and the context becomes exactly the same as War Caster: a spell which "targets only that creature". The errata only serves to explain what it means for a spell to be single-target.
For the record, you're all bringing up good points. Don't read into things like I'm picking on anyone. :P
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I see your point as well. This is the problem with natural language rules. "must only target that creature" could be read as "incapable of targeting more creatures than that creature" or "incapapble of targeting any creature other than that creature." The second reading certainly doesn't make sense, as you point out, which is why I think only the first is reasonable.
If they truly meant for there to be such a distinction, it causes more problems than it solves. In such a scenario, a Warlock/Sorcerer with War Caster (via Variant Human or ASI) would be able to use Eldritch Blast as an AoO with impunity (so long as it's only 1 target), but they would only be able to use it with Twinned Spell from character levels 1-4. As soon as they hit level 5, they are suddenly unable to ever twin it again. That doesn't pass a design sniff-test to me; EB should not be eligible for either at any point in a character's career.
I can't argue with your design intuition. What I can say is that my own intuition doesn't agree with yours. To me it's perfectly natural that two features that are designed to do different things are have different constraints on them; there's no a priori reason to expect them to work the way. The purpose of Twinned Spell is to take a spell that targets 1 and only 1 creature and turn it into a spell that targets 2 creatures. The purpose of that benefit of War Caster is to give an alternative way to punish 1 creature. It's natural that Twinned Spell is only defined on spells that can only ever have 1 target because that leads to the least amount of complications and corner cases when expanding the number of targets. It's also natural that War Caster is less strict because the main concern is stopping players from abusing it with collateral damage.
It also opens up a potential can of worms on things that have been argued to death like Green-Flame Blade. It's been my understanding that this spell was a definitive "no" when it comes to both WC & TS...
I don't recall Jeremy ruling on Green-Flame Blade and War Caster specifically.
...but if nobody else actually takes the splash damage it's suddenly viable for use with WC?
Assuming the DM allows you to choose no one (as written, the spell is at best unclear on that point), yes.
If you can simply choose to not target more than one creature, as Mearls asserts is the case, then can I cast a Fireball that only applies to one creature?
Mearls can't give official rulings like Jeremy, and as far as RAW rulings go he's wrong relatively often.
Area spells are a no-go for War Caster even by Jeremy's less strict interpretation (compared to yours) because there's no way to guarantee you'll only target the creature you intend. For all you know there could be an invisible creature hidden within the spell's area.
Ice Knife always explodes, and it's therefore always ineligible for the same reasons fireball is ineligible.
I don't believe that's the case. You can't be targeted by a spell if you're in full cover, but you can cast from full cover without issue. Can a point-blank Ice Knife be cast with War Caster if you are ineligible to be targeted by the AoE in return? Yet none of these things work with Twinned Spell because it was errata'd for being prominently in the public eye? I don't buy it.
I don't see how you could possibly cast Ice Knife
Crawford and Mearls don't even seem to agree with each other on how TS is supposed to work, so I do not trust they have a consensus on how WC is supposed to actually work, or that it is functionally any different from TS. RAI, the targeting restrictions on War Caster are the same as Twinned Spell (errata).
Not sure how you're making the jump from "Mearls and Crawford don't agree on this issue" (which happens very often) to "therefore I believe I'm correct on the RAI here."
If they truly meant for there to be such a distinction, it causes more problems than it solves. In such a scenario, a Warlock/Sorcerer with War Caster (via Variant Human or ASI) would be able to use Eldritch Blast as an AoO with impunity (so long as it's only 1 target), but they would only be able to use it with Twinned Spell from character levels 1-4. As soon as they hit level 5, they are suddenly unable to ever twin it again. That doesn't pass a design sniff-test to me; EB should not be eligible for either at any point in a character's career.
I can't argue with your design intuition. What I can say is that my own intuition doesn't agree with yours. To me it's perfectly natural that two features that are designed to do different things are have different constraints on them; there's no a priori reason to expect them to work the way. The purpose of Twinned Spell is to take a spell that targets 1 and only 1 creature and turn it into a spell that targets 2 creatures. The purpose of that benefit of War Caster is to give an alternative way to punish 1 creature. It's natural that Twinned Spell is only defined on spells that can only ever have 1 target because that leads to the least amount of complications and corner cases when expanding the number of targets. It's also natural that War Caster is less strict because the main concern is stopping players from abusing it with collateral damage.
I don't disagree with the end result of features that do different things; of course they do, and that's not what is being examined. Both abilities are dependent on choosing a spell targeting only one creature. What happens after that is what differentiates the features.
If the main concern of War Caster is to stop players from abusing it with collateral damage, then it is not less strict. That's exactly what requiring a single-target spell is. They both have the same requirements in terms of spell selection.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I don't disagree with the end result of features that do different things; of course they do, and that's not what is being examined.
You made it relevant when you brought your sniff-test into the discussion. You need to justify why the two features need to work the same. I'm giving you a good reason why they don't have to.
Both abilities are denpendent on choosing a spell targeting only one creature.
No. One feature depends on choosing a spell that's incapable of targeting more than one creature and the other requires targeting only one creature with the spell. They use different wording and you're conflating the two based on some unprovable expectation that the devs forgot to update War Caster.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
War Caster is phrased from the perspective of complete specificity. War Caster is only applicable when something specific has already begun to occur. It is telling you that the spell must target only "that" creature because the "one" creature has already been implicitly assigned as the target. It cannot be phrased as "targets only one creature" because the potential scenario is no longer open-ended. Otherwise, that combination of language and context would allow for the target of the spell to be a different creature from the one which provoked the attack. We know that is not the case.
Warcaster: When a hostile creature's movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature.
Because of the "at the creature" defining the target, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to use "one" in place of "that" in the last sentence if the intention was to limit spell choices to only spells capable of targeting one creature. It would read a little strange, but a reasonable reader would at least question what was meant.
What if it said "only the provoking creature" instead of "only that creature"? This is the reference which "that" points to. Would you still claim that the text supports only spells capable of targeting a single creature?
I think I may have actually come around, it is perfectly reasonable to cast any spell you like in this case, as long as it only targets the triggering creature. What does that effectively mean? It means that for spells that allow you to choose targets, you must only choose the triggering creature. Otherwise, nearly the same restrictions exist as for Twinned spell, right?
Where are the edge cases where they're different other than when you can choose targets?
War Caster is phrased from the perspective of complete specificity. War Caster is only applicable when something specific has already begun to occur. It is telling you that the spell must target only "that" creature because the "one" creature has already been implicitly assigned as the target. It cannot be phrased as "targets only one creature" because the potential scenario is no longer open-ended. Otherwise, that combination of language and context would allow for the target of the spell to be a different creature from the one which provoked the attack. We know that is not the case.
Warcaster: When a hostile creature's movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature.
Because of the "at the creature" defining the target, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to use "one" in place of "that" in the last sentence if the intention was to limit spell choices to only spells capable of targeting one creature. It would read a little strange, but a reasonable reader would at least question what was meant.
What if it said "only the provoking creature" instead of "only that creature"? This is the reference which "that" points to. Would you still claim that the text supports only spells capable of targeting a single creature?
Yes, I would. That would bring things even more in line with Twinned Spell. I still believe the errata on TS only explains what a single-target spell really is. At the end of the day, there are only a couple spells that work with RAW War Caster which do work with the TS errata. Not a hill worth dying on.
Although, this topic got me thinking about solutions to these types of problems that don't involve altering text. All of this comes down to which spells are eligible for what, so why not just have spell tags for eligibility? Just throw a tag on each spell, and there's no doubt about whether the spell qualifies.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
What if it said "only the provoking creature" instead of "only that creature"? This is the reference which "that" points to. Would you still claim that the text supports only spells capable of targeting a single creature?
Yes, I would. That would bring things even more in line with Twinned Spell.
From my perspective, it's the opposite. It doesn't say a spell that can target only the provoking creature, but just a spell that does target only the provoking creature. I'm really trying to understand your viewpoint. In what way do you think it brings it even more in line with Twinned Spell? How would warcaster have to be worded for you to think differently?
I still believe the errata on TS only explains what a single-target spell really is.
If the errata was there to explain what a single-target spell is, it would be in the section on spellcasting and not tucked away in the sorcerer's metamagic options.
Spells that divide their effect among selected creatures: It is usually optimal to focus fire anyway, unless one or two blasts would kill the creature.
Spells that allow you to select multiple targets at their lowest level: using them with warcaster is strictly a sub-optimal use (especially when other creatures are on the board).
Spells that you must upcast in order to target multiple creatures: again, this is a strictly sub-optimal choice for those slots unless you have no other higher level spell options.
None of the spells that you took the time to list (except for the divided-effect ones from the first category) are so powerful that using them poorly for an AoO would seem overpowered (edit) to me.
Just popping in to link to the other thread a while back where many of the same parties argued this same question re: ice knife. Rules Clarification, November 7-9 2019.
1. War Caster only requires a spell that "target[s] only" one creature. The sentence is not ambiguous as written, and interjecting a "can only target one creature" re-write is not resolving an ambiguity but rather rewriting the rule entirely. Trying to fill in rules because you believe that the authors have committed an oversight is the very definitionof applying RAI over RAW instead of to support RAW, and is a concession that the text of the rules do not say what you are claiming.
2. Ice Knife, Acid Splash, higher level Eldritch Blast, etc... all of these are spells that clearly target one or more creatures, instead of areas, and thus can quite certainly be cast by Warcaster. In the other thread I discussed how it's a harder bright line to draw between creature targeting spells vs area targeting spells than you might think though, since even a clearly-area based spell like Fireball only actually mentions the word "target" in reference to creatures, suggesting you could cast Fireball in a way that only "targets one creature."
I think something missing from the conversation is the context in which warcaster applies...you can argue all you want about whether spells like fireball, ice knife, Or Eldritch Blast could be cast with war caster, but no one would want to...you’re 5 feet away; ranged spells would be cast with disadvantage and Fireball would catch the caster in its AoE. Ice Knife would actually have both disadvantage and would catch the caster in the AoE. A caster with this feat is sticking with mainly touch spells or single target saving throw spells to use it most effectively or without accidentally killing themselves
I think something missing from the conversation is the context in which warcaster applies...you can argue all you want about whether spells like fireball, ice knife, Or Eldritch Blast could be cast with war caster, but no one would want to...you’re 5 feet away; ranged spells would be cast with disadvantage and Fireball would catch the caster in its AoE. Ice Knife would actually have both disadvantage and would catch the caster in the AoE. A caster with this feat is sticking with mainly touch spells or single target saving throw spells to use it most effectively or without accidentally killing themselves
I don't think anyone is arguing for AoE spells because they generally target a point in space and anyone in their area.
The only thing you need to do to fix the range issue is to hold a whip. Then you threaten out to 10 feet and can cast ranged spells without disadvantage.
I think something missing from the conversation is the context in which warcaster applies...you can argue all you want about whether spells like fireball, ice knife, Or Eldritch Blast could be cast with war caster, but no one would want to...you’re 5 feet away; ranged spells would be cast with disadvantage and Fireball would catch the caster in its AoE. Ice Knife would actually have both disadvantage and would catch the caster in the AoE. A caster with this feat is sticking with mainly touch spells or single target saving throw spells to use it most effectively or without accidentally killing themselves
See my post @ #2. Also, as pwhimp identifies, using a reach weapon or someone using crossbow expert could overcome the range issue easily enough. But it is a valid point, and paraphrasing Jeff Goldblum's character from Jurassic Park, we've spent so much time asking if we could cast these spells, when we should be asking if we should.
Just popping in to link to the other thread a while back where many of the same parties argued this same question re: ice knife. Rules Clarification, November 7-9 2019.
1. War Caster only requires a spell that "target[s] only" one creature. The sentence is not ambiguous as written, and interjecting a "can only target one creature" re-write is not resolving an ambiguity but rather rewriting the rule entirely. Trying to fill in rules because you believe that the authors have committed an oversight is the very definitionof applying RAI over RAW instead of to support RAW, and is a concession that the text of the rules do not say what you are claiming.
2. Ice Knife, Acid Splash, higher level Eldritch Blast, etc... all of these are spells that clearly target one or more creatures, instead of areas, and thus can quite certainly be cast by Warcaster. In the other thread I discussed how it's a harder bright line to draw between creature targeting spells vs area targeting spells than you might think though, since even a clearly-area based spell like Fireball only actually mentions the word "target" in reference to creatures, suggesting you could cast Fireball in a way that only "targets one creature."
1. I think I agree with. Even if I was correct with my original assumption on intent, you are right, it would require applying RAI over RAW.
2. You bring up fireball which recalls the argument of "does target mean point of aim or affected creature" again. Fireball is one of a very select few spells that calls the affected creatures "targets," whereas most other area spells do not (in fact, all others that I checked; see erupting earth for an example). In that other thread, most people seem to be under the impression that "target" in the sense of warcaster (and twin spell) means specifically "point of aim" (hence they would allow ice knife). I would argue that if you want "target" to mean "affected creature" then you can use fireball (and only other area spells, that use "target" for "affected creature," since others clearly target a point in space) but circumstantially not ice knife, and if you want "target" to mean "point of aim" then it is the other way around. You can't have it both ways. Jeremy Crawford seems to imply that "target" for area spells means affected creature, which is different from the rules on spellcasting about targeting (note that this is applicable, even though the question was about Twinning due to the question being about multiple targets).
I think something missing from the conversation is the context in which warcaster applies...you can argue all you want about whether spells like fireball, ice knife, Or Eldritch Blast could be cast with war caster, but no one would want to...you’re 5 feet away; ranged spells would be cast with disadvantage and Fireball would catch the caster in its AoE. Ice Knife would actually have both disadvantage and would catch the caster in the AoE. A caster with this feat is sticking with mainly touch spells or single target saving throw spells to use it most effectively or without accidentally killing themselves
See my post @ #2. Also, as pwhimp identifies, using a reach weapon or someone using crossbow expert could overcome the range issue easily enough. But it is a valid point, and paraphrasing Jeff Goldblum's character from Jurassic Park, we've spent so much time asking if we could cast these spells, when we should be asking if we should.
See my post @ #31. I would argue that almost every spell that you could use to target more than one creature (whether it is at disadvantage or not) would be better used on your turn to actually target multiple creatures than as an AoO (except possibly eldritch blast type spells at range or magic missile no matter the range). I'd suggest using a saving throw cantrip or a shillelagh whack (if you've already cast it on your staff) on an AoO most of the time, with the occasional saving throw single target spell when you have the resources.
I think something missing from the conversation is the context in which warcaster applies...you can argue all you want about whether spells like fireball, ice knife, Or Eldritch Blast could be cast with war caster, but no one would want to...you’re 5 feet away; ranged spells would be cast with disadvantage and Fireball would catch the caster in its AoE. Ice Knife would actually have both disadvantage and would catch the caster in the AoE. A caster with this feat is sticking with mainly touch spells or single target saving throw spells to use it most effectively or without accidentally killing themselves
See my post @ #2. Also, as pwhimp identifies, using a reach weapon or someone using crossbow expert could overcome the range issue easily enough. But it is a valid point, and paraphrasing Jeff Goldblum's character from Jurassic Park, we've spent so much time asking if we could cast these spells, when we should be asking if we should.
See my post @ #31. I would argue that almost every spell that you could use to target more than one creature (whether it is at disadvantage or not) would be better used on your turn to actually target multiple creatures than as an AoO (except possibly eldritch blast type spells at range or magic missile no matter the range). I'd suggest using a saving throw cantrip or a shillelagh whack (if you've already cast it on your staff) on an AoO most of the time, with the occasional saving throw single target spell when you have the resources.
I'd typically agree. Cantrips with higher average damage than an average attack or one that has benefits such as Frostbite or Shocking Grasp would typically be better than using a spell slot that could be fully capitalized upon during your turn. Exceptions such as a high HP single target that poses a significant threat and is best overcome ASAP, could include some of these other spells.
I´d like to add to the discussion here - I completely agree with you because of this:
I am building a Death Cleric and am now at a point at which I realised, that the "Reaper" feature would essentially make Chill touch and Toll the Dead (Main resourceless damage source) ineligible for the purpose of war caster (I am not multiclassing sorcerer, so I don´t care for Twinned spell interaction with this feature.) which I am not buying. I think that (sub)class features should never debuff a character or its options, hence in this scenario if I can decide not to twin the cantrip for free, I can decide not to choose all the targets. A spell that allows me to choose multiple targets (Such as hold person cast with a 3rd level spell slot, magic missile or eldricht blast.) also allows me to target only one target, hence it being eligible for war caster for the sole reason that a spellcaster can make the choice to not use all the possibilities a spell grants them (Such as detect thoughts allowing you to use your action to probe someoene, but you never having to choose to do so.). I´m trying to support your argument here, I hope it´s not confusing.
Recent clarifications help to understand some of these features. Reaper says that the spell “can target two creatures” rather than a single garget. Following the recent clarification that “can” is not a requirement - a single target could still be selected. Combined with the additional information that Warcaster only requires a single current target (and not the additional targeting requirements of Twinned Spell), I think reaper does not break necrotic cantrips for death domain clerics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"That creature" and "one creature" are still singular, and mean exactly the same thing for the context of War Caster. The difference in language from each statement is not about implicit capability; it is whether an actual target has already implicitly been assigned.
Twinned Spell is phrased from the perspective of complete generality. None of the language is attributable to things that already have an implicit target because nothing is directly occurring. It is telling you that only spells that target "one" creature are eligible because that one creature can be any potential creature.
War Caster is phrased from the perspective of complete specificity. War Caster is only applicable when something specific has already begun to occur. It is telling you that the spell must target only "that" creature because the "one" creature has already been implicitly assigned as the target. It cannot be phrased as "targets only one creature" because the potential scenario is no longer open-ended. Otherwise, that combination of language and context would allow for the target of the spell to be a different creature from the one which provoked the attack. We know that is not the case.
That is critical for the context here because once you are actually using Twinned Spell, you have an implicitly assigned target, and the context becomes exactly the same as War Caster: a spell which "targets only that creature". The errata only serves to explain what it means for a spell to be single-target.
For the record, you're all bringing up good points. Don't read into things like I'm picking on anyone. :P
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I see your point as well. This is the problem with natural language rules. "must only target that creature" could be read as "incapable of targeting more creatures than that creature" or "incapapble of targeting any creature other than that creature." The second reading certainly doesn't make sense, as you point out, which is why I think only the first is reasonable.
I can't argue with your design intuition. What I can say is that my own intuition doesn't agree with yours. To me it's perfectly natural that two features that are designed to do different things are have different constraints on them; there's no a priori reason to expect them to work the way. The purpose of Twinned Spell is to take a spell that targets 1 and only 1 creature and turn it into a spell that targets 2 creatures. The purpose of that benefit of War Caster is to give an alternative way to punish 1 creature. It's natural that Twinned Spell is only defined on spells that can only ever have 1 target because that leads to the least amount of complications and corner cases when expanding the number of targets. It's also natural that War Caster is less strict because the main concern is stopping players from abusing it with collateral damage.
I don't recall Jeremy ruling on Green-Flame Blade and War Caster specifically.
Assuming the DM allows you to choose no one (as written, the spell is at best unclear on that point), yes.
Mearls can't give official rulings like Jeremy, and as far as RAW rulings go he's wrong relatively often.
Area spells are a no-go for War Caster even by Jeremy's less strict interpretation (compared to yours) because there's no way to guarantee you'll only target the creature you intend. For all you know there could be an invisible creature hidden within the spell's area.
Ice Knife always explodes, and it's therefore always ineligible for the same reasons fireball is ineligible.
I don't see how you could possibly cast Ice Knife
Not sure how you're making the jump from "Mearls and Crawford don't agree on this issue" (which happens very often) to "therefore I believe I'm correct on the RAI here."
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I don't disagree with the end result of features that do different things; of course they do, and that's not what is being examined. Both abilities are dependent on choosing a spell targeting only one creature. What happens after that is what differentiates the features.
If the main concern of War Caster is to stop players from abusing it with collateral damage, then it is not less strict. That's exactly what requiring a single-target spell is. They both have the same requirements in terms of spell selection.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
You made it relevant when you brought your sniff-test into the discussion. You need to justify why the two features need to work the same. I'm giving you a good reason why they don't have to.
No. One feature depends on choosing a spell that's incapable of targeting more than one creature and the other requires targeting only one creature with the spell. They use different wording and you're conflating the two based on some unprovable expectation that the devs forgot to update War Caster.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
IC, go back and read what I said in post #21.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Because of the "at the creature" defining the target, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to use "one" in place of "that" in the last sentence if the intention was to limit spell choices to only spells capable of targeting one creature. It would read a little strange, but a reasonable reader would at least question what was meant.
What if it said "only the provoking creature" instead of "only that creature"? This is the reference which "that" points to. Would you still claim that the text supports only spells capable of targeting a single creature?
I think I may have actually come around, it is perfectly reasonable to cast any spell you like in this case, as long as it only targets the triggering creature. What does that effectively mean? It means that for spells that allow you to choose targets, you must only choose the triggering creature. Otherwise, nearly the same restrictions exist as for Twinned spell, right?
Where are the edge cases where they're different other than when you can choose targets?
Yes, I would. That would bring things even more in line with Twinned Spell. I still believe the errata on TS only explains what a single-target spell really is. At the end of the day, there are only a couple spells that work with RAW War Caster which do work with the TS errata. Not a hill worth dying on.
Although, this topic got me thinking about solutions to these types of problems that don't involve altering text. All of this comes down to which spells are eligible for what, so why not just have spell tags for eligibility? Just throw a tag on each spell, and there's no doubt about whether the spell qualifies.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
From my perspective, it's the opposite. It doesn't say a spell that can target only the provoking creature, but just a spell that does target only the provoking creature. I'm really trying to understand your viewpoint. In what way do you think it brings it even more in line with Twinned Spell? How would warcaster have to be worded for you to think differently?
If the errata was there to explain what a single-target spell is, it would be in the section on spellcasting and not tucked away in the sorcerer's metamagic options.
I think you're underestimating the number of spells that this difference affects. It is fewer than I thought, but a quick count gives
You have listed 3 types of spells:
None of the spells that you took the time to list (except for the divided-effect ones from the first category) are so powerful that using them poorly for an AoO would seem overpowered (edit) to me.
Just popping in to link to the other thread a while back where many of the same parties argued this same question re: ice knife. Rules Clarification, November 7-9 2019.
1. War Caster only requires a spell that "target[s] only" one creature. The sentence is not ambiguous as written, and interjecting a "can only target one creature" re-write is not resolving an ambiguity but rather rewriting the rule entirely. Trying to fill in rules because you believe that the authors have committed an oversight is the very definition of applying RAI over RAW instead of to support RAW, and is a concession that the text of the rules do not say what you are claiming.
2. Ice Knife, Acid Splash, higher level Eldritch Blast, etc... all of these are spells that clearly target one or more creatures, instead of areas, and thus can quite certainly be cast by Warcaster. In the other thread I discussed how it's a harder bright line to draw between creature targeting spells vs area targeting spells than you might think though, since even a clearly-area based spell like Fireball only actually mentions the word "target" in reference to creatures, suggesting you could cast Fireball in a way that only "targets one creature."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I think something missing from the conversation is the context in which warcaster applies...you can argue all you want about whether spells like fireball, ice knife, Or Eldritch Blast could be cast with war caster, but no one would want to...you’re 5 feet away; ranged spells would be cast with disadvantage and Fireball would catch the caster in its AoE. Ice Knife would actually have both disadvantage and would catch the caster in the AoE. A caster with this feat is sticking with mainly touch spells or single target saving throw spells to use it most effectively or without accidentally killing themselves
I don't think anyone is arguing for AoE spells because they generally target a point in space and anyone in their area.
The only thing you need to do to fix the range issue is to hold a whip. Then you threaten out to 10 feet and can cast ranged spells without disadvantage.
See my post @ #2. Also, as pwhimp identifies, using a reach weapon or someone using crossbow expert could overcome the range issue easily enough. But it is a valid point, and paraphrasing Jeff Goldblum's character from Jurassic Park, we've spent so much time asking if we could cast these spells, when we should be asking if we should.
1. I think I agree with. Even if I was correct with my original assumption on intent, you are right, it would require applying RAI over RAW.
2. You bring up fireball which recalls the argument of "does target mean point of aim or affected creature" again. Fireball is one of a very select few spells that calls the affected creatures "targets," whereas most other area spells do not (in fact, all others that I checked; see erupting earth for an example). In that other thread, most people seem to be under the impression that "target" in the sense of warcaster (and twin spell) means specifically "point of aim" (hence they would allow ice knife). I would argue that if you want "target" to mean "affected creature" then you can use fireball (and only other area spells, that use "target" for "affected creature," since others clearly target a point in space) but circumstantially not ice knife, and if you want "target" to mean "point of aim" then it is the other way around. You can't have it both ways. Jeremy Crawford seems to imply that "target" for area spells means affected creature, which is different from the rules on spellcasting about targeting (note that this is applicable, even though the question was about Twinning due to the question being about multiple targets).
See my post @ #31. I would argue that almost every spell that you could use to target more than one creature (whether it is at disadvantage or not) would be better used on your turn to actually target multiple creatures than as an AoO (except possibly eldritch blast type spells at range or magic missile no matter the range). I'd suggest using a saving throw cantrip or a shillelagh whack (if you've already cast it on your staff) on an AoO most of the time, with the occasional saving throw single target spell when you have the resources.
I'd typically agree. Cantrips with higher average damage than an average attack or one that has benefits such as Frostbite or Shocking Grasp would typically be better than using a spell slot that could be fully capitalized upon during your turn. Exceptions such as a high HP single target that poses a significant threat and is best overcome ASAP, could include some of these other spells.
I´d like to add to the discussion here - I completely agree with you because of this:
I am building a Death Cleric and am now at a point at which I realised, that the "Reaper" feature would essentially make Chill touch and Toll the Dead (Main resourceless damage source) ineligible for the purpose of war caster (I am not multiclassing sorcerer, so I don´t care for Twinned spell interaction with this feature.) which I am not buying. I think that (sub)class features should never debuff a character or its options, hence in this scenario if I can decide not to twin the cantrip for free, I can decide not to choose all the targets. A spell that allows me to choose multiple targets (Such as hold person cast with a 3rd level spell slot, magic missile or eldricht blast.) also allows me to target only one target, hence it being eligible for war caster for the sole reason that a spellcaster can make the choice to not use all the possibilities a spell grants them (Such as detect thoughts allowing you to use your action to probe someoene, but you never having to choose to do so.). I´m trying to support your argument here, I hope it´s not confusing.
Recent clarifications help to understand some of these features. Reaper says that the spell “can target two creatures” rather than a single garget. Following the recent clarification that “can” is not a requirement - a single target could still be selected. Combined with the additional information that Warcaster only requires a single current target (and not the additional targeting requirements of Twinned Spell), I think reaper does not break necrotic cantrips for death domain clerics.