A number of spells have a provision setting the conditions under which the spell ends. Maze is one example: "The target can use its action to attempt to escape. When it does so, it makes a DC 20 Intelligence check. If it succeeds, it escapes, and the spell ends."
Twinned Spell isn't a second casting of a spell; rather, it adds a second target to the same spell. So, would Maze end for the second target as well when one target successfully escapes?
I would certainly rule that "the spell ends" actually means "the escaping target's instance of the spell ends," but I'm curious if it's come up for anyone else before, either with Maze or with any other spell that has similar language.
Hmm... Yeah I think it does end on both targets. Just something to be careful about, it think the number of instances this occurs is relatively limited.
This question is similar for Animal Friendship and a few other spells cast on more targets with higher level slots. I feel like either interpretation could reasonably be applied, but I would point out that some spells such as hold person specifically say that a save only ends the effect on that particular saving target.
For a single target spell that cannot be cast on multiple creatures without metamagic, if there really is supposed to be a difference between how animal friendship and hold person end, it is impossible to tell which side maze falls on, because the text of the spell is written assuming a single target with a single casting of the spell.
Something else that does not appear to be explicitly confirmed or prevented by the rules is the question of whether both creatures are sent together to the same demi plane. If the instance is created by the casting of the spell, you could make a solid argument that they are. From a narrative standpoint, I think that is certainly a lot more interesting than each of them going to their own labyrinth.
Maze is a single target spell. Just like Finger of Death is a single target spell. If one of the targets of Finger of Death makes a save, the other creature does not benefit from the save.
Twinned Spell creates two instances of the spell, one for each target, with a single casting of the spell.
Animal Friendship cannot be Twinned because it can target more than one creature at higher levels.
So to answer the OP, Maze would end on the creature which makes its save only.
One way to look at Maze could be that you're sending both targets to the same place and they lead each other out. If one makes the save then clearly the other one did too because they followed the one that succeeded. Heck they could even Help each other in that instance.
Note: I totally do not think that's how it works at all. Just a thought I had. I take the text to be that the spell ends for that specific target. The other one twinned is still affected.
Twinned Spell creates two instances of the spell, one for each target, with a single casting of the spell.
Same spell. Two targets.
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
Twinned Spell creates two instances of the spell, one for each target, with a single casting of the spell.
Same spell. Two targets.
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
Two spells, two targets, one casting. Are you trying to say twins are the same people? ;-)
Twinned Spell doesn't create two spells. It makes a single target spell target two people. It's exactly like the difference between a 1st and 2nd level Charm Person.
One way to look at Maze could be that you're sending both targets to the same place and they lead each other out. If one makes the save then clearly the other one did too because they followed the one that succeeded. Heck they could even Help each other in that instance.
Note: I totally do not think that's how it works at all. Just a thought I had. I take the text to be that the spell ends for that specific target. The other one twinned is still affected.
The Help action is something that I thought of last night while reading through these comments trying to sleep, haha. I would definitely allow it if I ever twinned Maze on my players. Another thought I had is the sorcerer targeting themselves and then disrupting the second target, imposing disadvantage on their check. Obviously we're straying away from "Rules & Game Mechanics" with this, but still a cool mental picture.
Twinned Spell doesn't create two spells. It makes a single target spell target two people. It's exactly like the difference between a 1st and 2nd level Charm Person.
It absolutely is not, hence the reason why Charm Person is not a valid Twin Spell.
with the same spell
It is English, if it were "a single target spell target two people", then the wording would be THE spell. But the wording is SAME spell, same means; identical or of an identical type. If I say the same thing over and over again, I have said it more than once. SAME is a comparative, there has to be at least TWO of something for it to be the SAME.
Twinned Spell doesn't create two spells. It makes a single target spell target two people. It's exactly like the difference between a 1st and 2nd level Charm Person.
It absolutely is not, hence the reason why Charm Person is not a valid Twin Spell.
with the same spell
It is English, if it were "a single target spell target two people", then the wording would be THE spell. But the wording is SAME spell, same means; identical or of an identical type. If I say the same thing over and over again, I have said it more than once. SAME is a comparative, there has to be at least TWO of something for it to be the SAME.
Sorry, but that's absolutely not true. If I were to say that two orcs were shot with "the same arrow," interpreting that to mean "the second orc was shot with a second arrow of the same type" would be insane.
Twinned Spell doesn't create two spells. It makes a single target spell target two people. It's exactly like the difference between a 1st and 2nd level Charm Person.
It absolutely is not, hence the reason why Charm Person is not a valid Twin Spell.
My point was that Charm Person 1st level targets 1 creature while Charm Person 2nd level targets two creatures - both with the same single spell.
And Charm Person IS a valid Twinned Spell option IF (and only if) it's cast at 1st level as it's a single target spell at that level and incapable of targetting more.
I won't comment on your very weird extrapolation of the meaning of the word "same" because SagaTympana's already done that.
If you and I were to see the same person, we saw a person whose description is comparatively identical, from our perspectives. However neither of us would say "I saw the same Ted."
Your example still requires two of something to be compared, in your case, Orcs.
If you and I were to see the same person, we saw a person whose description is comparatively identical, from our perspectives. However neither of us would say "I saw the same Ted."
Your example still requires two of something to be compared, in your case, Orcs.
Not really. You could hit a human and an orc with "the same arrow". It's still one arrow hitting two people which is only comparatively the "same" because it hit both targets.
In the example a single spell can hit two people and be "the same spell". As in the case with Twinned Spell.
The English language can be messy - but in this case it's pretty obvious the intent.
If you and I were to see the same person, we saw a person whose description is comparatively identical, from our perspectives. However neither of us would say "I saw the same Ted."
I have no idea what point you're trying to make. We would say that we saw "the same person." You started your comment here with that. And if we were discussing having each met someone named Ted, under the assumption that they were different people, and later discovered that our Teds were, in fact, the same person, we would absolutely say that we saw "the same Ted." The difference is solely which bit of information we choose to forefront.
A twinned spell is the “same spell” for both targets, but I would nevertheless come down on the side of not ending it on both targets when it ends on one. Either way you rule will cause awkward situations, but Holding both Persons separately until they pass their respective saves is a clear RAI/RAF winner for me, and I don’t think RAW is sufficiently clear to require an alternate application.
A twinned spell is the “same spell” for both targets, but I would nevertheless come down on the side of not ending it on both targets when it ends on one. Either way you rule will cause awkward situations, but Holding both Persons separately until they pass their respective saves is a clear RAI/RAF winner for me, and I don’t think RAW is sufficiently clear to require an alternate application.
That was certainly my initial position, and I still think that it's the intent. But some other people's comments here have convinced me that, once we think about the fiction Maze is supposed to represent, having it end for both parties becomes the RAF ruling for me.
A number of spells have a provision setting the conditions under which the spell ends. Maze is one example: "The target can use its action to attempt to escape. When it does so, it makes a DC 20 Intelligence check. If it succeeds, it escapes, and the spell ends."
Twinned Spell isn't a second casting of a spell; rather, it adds a second target to the same spell. So, would Maze end for the second target as well when one target successfully escapes?
I would certainly rule that "the spell ends" actually means "the escaping target's instance of the spell ends," but I'm curious if it's come up for anyone else before, either with Maze or with any other spell that has similar language.
I feel like the intention is that when the (a) target escapes, the spell ends. And if the spell ends, the spell ends for both instances.
That isn't nearly as much fun though.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Hmm... Yeah I think it does end on both targets. Just something to be careful about, it think the number of instances this occurs is relatively limited.
This question is similar for Animal Friendship and a few other spells cast on more targets with higher level slots. I feel like either interpretation could reasonably be applied, but I would point out that some spells such as hold person specifically say that a save only ends the effect on that particular saving target.
For a single target spell that cannot be cast on multiple creatures without metamagic, if there really is supposed to be a difference between how animal friendship and hold person end, it is impossible to tell which side maze falls on, because the text of the spell is written assuming a single target with a single casting of the spell.
Something else that does not appear to be explicitly confirmed or prevented by the rules is the question of whether both creatures are sent together to the same demi plane. If the instance is created by the casting of the spell, you could make a solid argument that they are. From a narrative standpoint, I think that is certainly a lot more interesting than each of them going to their own labyrinth.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Maze is a single target spell. Just like Finger of Death is a single target spell. If one of the targets of Finger of Death makes a save, the other creature does not benefit from the save.
Twinned Spell creates two instances of the spell, one for each target, with a single casting of the spell.
Animal Friendship cannot be Twinned because it can target more than one creature at higher levels.
So to answer the OP, Maze would end on the creature which makes its save only.
One way to look at Maze could be that you're sending both targets to the same place and they lead each other out. If one makes the save then clearly the other one did too because they followed the one that succeeded. Heck they could even Help each other in that instance.
Note: I totally do not think that's how it works at all. Just a thought I had.
I take the text to be that the spell ends for that specific target. The other one twinned is still affected.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Same spell. Two targets.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Two spells, two targets, one casting. Are you trying to say twins are the same people? ;-)
Twinned Spell doesn't create two spells. It makes a single target spell target two people. It's exactly like the difference between a 1st and 2nd level Charm Person.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
The Help action is something that I thought of last night while reading through these comments trying to sleep, haha. I would definitely allow it if I ever twinned Maze on my players. Another thought I had is the sorcerer targeting themselves and then disrupting the second target, imposing disadvantage on their check. Obviously we're straying away from "Rules & Game Mechanics" with this, but still a cool mental picture.
It absolutely is not, hence the reason why Charm Person is not a valid Twin Spell.
It is English, if it were "a single target spell target two people", then the wording would be THE spell. But the wording is SAME spell, same means; identical or of an identical type. If I say the same thing over and over again, I have said it more than once. SAME is a comparative, there has to be at least TWO of something for it to be the SAME.
Sorry, but that's absolutely not true. If I were to say that two orcs were shot with "the same arrow," interpreting that to mean "the second orc was shot with a second arrow of the same type" would be insane.
My point was that Charm Person 1st level targets 1 creature while Charm Person 2nd level targets two creatures - both with the same single spell.
And Charm Person IS a valid Twinned Spell option IF (and only if) it's cast at 1st level as it's a single target spell at that level and incapable of targetting more.
I won't comment on your very weird extrapolation of the meaning of the word "same" because SagaTympana's already done that.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
If you and I were to see the same person, we saw a person whose description is comparatively identical, from our perspectives. However neither of us would say "I saw the same Ted."
Your example still requires two of something to be compared, in your case, Orcs.
Not really. You could hit a human and an orc with "the same arrow". It's still one arrow hitting two people which is only comparatively the "same" because it hit both targets.
In the example a single spell can hit two people and be "the same spell". As in the case with Twinned Spell.
The English language can be messy - but in this case it's pretty obvious the intent.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
I have no idea what point you're trying to make. We would say that we saw "the same person." You started your comment here with that. And if we were discussing having each met someone named Ted, under the assumption that they were different people, and later discovered that our Teds were, in fact, the same person, we would absolutely say that we saw "the same Ted." The difference is solely which bit of information we choose to forefront.
A twinned spell is the “same spell” for both targets, but I would nevertheless come down on the side of not ending it on both targets when it ends on one. Either way you rule will cause awkward situations, but Holding both Persons separately until they pass their respective saves is a clear RAI/RAF winner for me, and I don’t think RAW is sufficiently clear to require an alternate application.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That was certainly my initial position, and I still think that it's the intent. But some other people's comments here have convinced me that, once we think about the fiction Maze is supposed to represent, having it end for both parties becomes the RAF ruling for me.
Now I'm fascinated. At your table, does counterspell negate a twinned spell or only half of it?
"Not all those who wander are lost"