My understanding was that Dragon's Breath was the original impetus for the SAC changes to the spell, based on this tweet from JC. Now I'm not saying you should take the tweet as any kind of canon because we've all been down that road before, but the point he makes in his tweet is that, "Dragon's breath can affect more than one creature with the exhalation. It therefore can't be twinned." That's why I went into this thinking it was the last bullet point that was the problem for that particular spell.
You might be right, but dragon's breath gives two sets of targets in the spell: the target who can use an action on the breath weapon and the targets affected by the breath. Haste does not, haste only mentions the target of the spell. According to a few tweets in that thread, it looks like Jeremy intends to allow haste.
And again, if it is going to be so difficult, why not just give us a list. Looking at the errata text, it would probably be fewer words to just list the spells.
Man. Wizards just really, really, really hates Twin Spell.
The RAI is obvious. "If it deals AoE damage, either directly or via a secondary effect like Dragon's Breath or Ice Knife, then don't twin it. We don't want you to be able to damage something twice with one cast."
The rest of this is basically just Wizards admitting that they hate Twin Spell and see it as being useful solely for duplicating a simple, one-and-done single target damaging or healing spell. At this point? I see the constant back-and-forthing in Sage Advice on what is and is not valid for Twin Spell as an admission that it's up to the DM at any given table. Wizards would rather just rip Twin Spell out of the book altogether, so to hell with their opinion.
It changes every thirteen seconds anyways, why give a snot about it?
Twinned Spell and Chaos Bolt: I believe they work together. Here's my reasoning. Twinned Spell states that it must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the current level. Chaos Bolt only ever targets one creature. You target a creature, hit, roll damage. You have finished with that target. Assuming the d8s were the same result, you select a new target if desired. That creature becomes the new target. That means you're still only targeting one creature.
That said, it's always DM discretion when it comes to final say on mechanics interplay. That's all it really boils down to. If you want, you can even rule it that Chaos Bolt can only select a creature as a target one time collectively for both instances of the spell.
I think even without the SAC, I'd disagree with this chaos bolt explanation. You are just saying that because the spell doesn't do damage all at once it can be twinned, and that seems pretty far from RAI. That is like saying "if this fireball doesn't hit more than one creature I can twin it."
Who rolls the breath weapon for dragon's breath? If it is the caster of dragon's breath, than I guess you are right. If it is the person using the breath effect, then I'm not so sure.
Actually, nevermind. I've changed my position on this errata. If they're going to make determining which spells you can twin so complicated, shouldn't they just make things easier and give us a list: "You can twin these 7 spells, as long as you aren't up-casting them."
5e would absolutely benefit from a system of "tags" that the rules then interact with. Twinnable spells are spells that have/lack these tags, etc etc.
I think this is an excellent suggestion, just as concentration spells are marked. Just a letter that shows which metamagics work.
Wait I don't really understand your position David42, the creature that casts haste (the "you" in the bullet) on another creature will later make rolls as a part of the casting of haste that could affect multiple creatures?
I think the intention is that the spell is disqualified if the caster, not the target, can make a roll later that could affect multiple creatures (for example chain lightning).
A Sorcadin or other combo could very easily be the caster *and* the target of a twinned Haste (or twinned Enlarge/Reduce) spell, with the specific intent to "make a roll of any kind that can affect more than one creature before the spell's duration expires."
Wait I don't really understand your position David42, the creature that casts haste (the "you" in the bullet) on another creature will later make rolls as a part of the casting of haste that could affect multiple creatures?
I think the intention is that the spell is disqualified if the caster, not the target, can make a roll later that could affect multiple creatures (for example chain lightning).
A Sorcadin or other combo could very easily be the caster *and* the target of a twinned Haste (or twinned Enlarge/Reduce) spell, with the specific intent to "make a roll of any kind that can affect more than one creature before the spell's duration expires."
I don't think you understand my problem with David42's interpretation, or if you do you didn't make that clear. My point was that there has to be some limit to the number of steps removed that "a roll of any kind" resulting from a spell cast that "affects another creature" would be disqualified. I don't imagine that casting healing word on a creature that might regain consciousness and later make several attacks counts as a spell that affects multiple creatures, right? The caster only hastes one creature, but that creature can later attack other creatures? isn't that similar?
So I think the author of the SAC entry must be talking about rolls that the caster makes (or forces for saves) directly called for by the spell, either now or later, and not those removed several steps.
If you are the caster and the target, I would assume that you could split rolls as those made "as the caster" and those "as the target," with the rolls made "as the caster" being the ones that would disqualify a particular spell.
Can you twin Revivify? Corpses are objects but the spell refers to them as creatures. I'd imagine you could do this by RAI(since no ome questions when you do it), but what about RAW?
Can you twin Revivify? Corpses are objects but the spell refers to them as creatures. I'd imagine you could do this by RAI(since no ome questions when you do it), but what about RAW?
There was another thread about this a few months ago. I think it basically came down 50/50 whether people agreed that you couldn't and those that agreed that you could. Like you say - twinning only works on creatures - but dead bodies are objects - but also the spell refers to them as creatures.
If you need to square it with the problem of targeting an object, then I would just shrug and not target the object, but instead tell the DM you wish to target "a creature that has died within the last minute." Or in this case, two creatures.
Wait I don't really understand your position David42, the creature that casts haste (the "you" in the bullet) on another creature will later make rolls as a part of the casting of haste that could affect multiple creatures?
I think the intention is that the spell is disqualified if the caster, not the target, can make a roll later that could affect multiple creatures (for example chain lightning).
A Sorcadin or other combo could very easily be the caster *and* the target of a twinned Haste (or twinned Enlarge/Reduce) spell, with the specific intent to "make a roll of any kind that can affect more than one creature before the spell's duration expires."
I don't think you understand my problem with David42's interpretation, or if you do you didn't make that clear. My point was that there has to be some limit to the number of steps removed that "a roll of any kind" resulting from a spell cast that "affects another creature" would be disqualified. I don't imagine that casting healing word on a creature that might regain consciousness and later make several attacks counts as a spell that affects multiple creatures, right? The caster only hastes one creature, but that creature can later attack other creatures? isn't that similar?
So I think the author of the SAC entry must be talking about rolls that the caster makes (or forces for saves) directly called for by the spell, either now or later, and not those removed several steps.
If you are the caster and the target, I would assume that you could split rolls as those made "as the caster" and those "as the target," with the rolls made "as the caster" being the ones that would disqualify a particular spell.
Just FYI :) ... it isn't my interpretation, it is one I found reading the forums and disagreed with but I can see how it could apply with the way the SAC entry is written.
If the SAC entry was talking about rolls the caster makes then twinning dragon's breath would be fine - cast it on two other creatures and the caster isn't rolling any more dice. The requirement for using twin spell "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn’t have a range of self" - RAW that should work fine for Dragon's breath.
The SAC entry currently says:
"Can my sorcerer use Twinned Spell to affect a particular spell?You can use Twinned Spell on a spell that ... •targets only one creature •doesn’t have a range of self •is incapable of targeting more than one creature at thespell’s current level"
This is the first part and it is ambiguous. What does the third bullet mean? The intent appears to be to exclude spells that themselves could target additional creatures after they are cast (like dragon's breath). It perhaps should have said "the spell's effect is incapable of targeting ...". Or perhaps it should have said that you could not twin spells that give the target the ability to use an AoE.
However, in the section where they try to clarify their intent they make the following statement:
"The spell lets you make a roll of any kind that canaffect more than one creature before the spell’s duration expires."
"You" in this context is presumably the target of the twinned spell not the caster since in the case of twinned haste or twinned dragons breath, the caster doesn't roll any more dice unless they were also a target of the spell. I think, again, the intent was to limit the ability to twin spells that target a single creature which also give that creature an ongoing ability to do something to multiple other creatures simultaneously (eg dragons breath). However, their design intent bullet doesn't state that - it says make "a roll of any kind" which would include attack rolls "that can affect more that one creature" it doesn't say simultaneously. So a spell giving a creature an extra attack every round fits the design intent described by this last bullet - which includes Haste.
Personally, I don't think that is correct, it is just another example of bad writing and poorly thought out rules "clarifications". I think the intent was to prevent twinning spells granting abilities to the target of the spell that in turn allow them to target multiple creatures simultaneously but they didn't do a good job of stating that.
Anyway, I'm not sure that there are that many spells intended to be affected by that particular SAC "clarification" except Dragons breath.
My reading of the RAW of twin spell would allow dragon's breath, the spell when cast only effects one creature. JC's tweet seems like an errata to me where a specific rule overrides a general one. So I'd be fine if my DM ruled with JC but I don't think RAW aligns with his ruling.
This just seems to be a knee jerk reaction, the twinning effect on static bonuses is massively more powerful than random bonuses. Simple example twinned mage armour gives a base AC of 13 that's 15% less likely to be hit by any number of creatures you can encounter for 8 HOURS. Twinning is expensive on sorcery points, limited to one class and is it's benefit to having a limit imposed to its flexibility. If there is a real balance issue relax the spell list and increase the sorcery point cost.
I think Haste should be a viable candidate for twinning. Judging by the information at the top of the post and reviewing the language in the spell. It really boils down to the interpretation of " Choose a willing creature that you can see within range. " and "Haste lets you make attack rolls that can affect more than one creature before the spell expires. "
I read the first section in the manner that "a" = 1, therefor naturally the spell can't target more than one character.
I read the second part where "haste let's you make attack roles that can affect more than one creater." in the manner that it's not you (the caster) that's making the attacks, it's your fighter friend you supercharged. Therefor you (the caster) is not doing anything wrong, you'd still have your one action/concentration per turn..
I think Haste should be a viable candidate for twinning. Judging by the information at the top of the post and reviewing the language in the spell. It really boils down to the interpretation of " Choose a willing creature that you can see within range. " and "Haste lets you make attack rolls that can affect more than one creature before the spell expires. "
I read the first section in the manner that "a" = 1, therefor naturally the spell can't target more than one character.
I read the second part where "haste let's you make attack roles that can affect more than one creater." in the manner that it's not you (the caster) that's making the attacks, it's your fighter friend you supercharged. Therefor you (the caster) is not doing anything wrong, you'd still have your one action/concentration per turn..
Haste is twinnable.
The spell effect is that you get an extra action. "You" do.
The action is now your action. What you do with it is a result of you. And not a direct "effect" of the spell.
So the spell only targets one creature. That creature is free to target whoever he wants.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
My understanding was that Dragon's Breath was the original impetus for the SAC changes to the spell, based on this tweet from JC. Now I'm not saying you should take the tweet as any kind of canon because we've all been down that road before, but the point he makes in his tweet is that, "Dragon's breath can affect more than one creature with the exhalation. It therefore can't be twinned." That's why I went into this thinking it was the last bullet point that was the problem for that particular spell.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
You might be right, but dragon's breath gives two sets of targets in the spell: the target who can use an action on the breath weapon and the targets affected by the breath. Haste does not, haste only mentions the target of the spell. According to a few tweets in that thread, it looks like Jeremy intends to allow haste.
And again, if it is going to be so difficult, why not just give us a list. Looking at the errata text, it would probably be fewer words to just list the spells.
Man. Wizards just really, really, really hates Twin Spell.
The RAI is obvious. "If it deals AoE damage, either directly or via a secondary effect like Dragon's Breath or Ice Knife, then don't twin it. We don't want you to be able to damage something twice with one cast."
The rest of this is basically just Wizards admitting that they hate Twin Spell and see it as being useful solely for duplicating a simple, one-and-done single target damaging or healing spell. At this point? I see the constant back-and-forthing in Sage Advice on what is and is not valid for Twin Spell as an admission that it's up to the DM at any given table. Wizards would rather just rip Twin Spell out of the book altogether, so to hell with their opinion.
It changes every thirteen seconds anyways, why give a snot about it?
Please do not contact or message me.
I'm gonna add my 2 cents.
Twinned Spell and Chaos Bolt: I believe they work together. Here's my reasoning. Twinned Spell states that it must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the current level. Chaos Bolt only ever targets one creature. You target a creature, hit, roll damage. You have finished with that target. Assuming the d8s were the same result, you select a new target if desired. That creature becomes the new target. That means you're still only targeting one creature.
That said, it's always DM discretion when it comes to final say on mechanics interplay. That's all it really boils down to. If you want, you can even rule it that Chaos Bolt can only select a creature as a target one time collectively for both instances of the spell.
I think even without the SAC, I'd disagree with this chaos bolt explanation. You are just saying that because the spell doesn't do damage all at once it can be twinned, and that seems pretty far from RAI. That is like saying "if this fireball doesn't hit more than one creature I can twin it."
I think this is an excellent suggestion, just as concentration spells are marked. Just a letter that shows which metamagics work.
A Sorcadin or other combo could very easily be the caster *and* the target of a twinned Haste (or twinned Enlarge/Reduce) spell, with the specific intent to "make a roll of any kind that can affect more than one creature before the spell's duration expires."
I don't think you understand my problem with David42's interpretation, or if you do you didn't make that clear. My point was that there has to be some limit to the number of steps removed that "a roll of any kind" resulting from a spell cast that "affects another creature" would be disqualified. I don't imagine that casting healing word on a creature that might regain consciousness and later make several attacks counts as a spell that affects multiple creatures, right? The caster only hastes one creature, but that creature can later attack other creatures? isn't that similar?
So I think the author of the SAC entry must be talking about rolls that the caster makes (or forces for saves) directly called for by the spell, either now or later, and not those removed several steps.
If you are the caster and the target, I would assume that you could split rolls as those made "as the caster" and those "as the target," with the rolls made "as the caster" being the ones that would disqualify a particular spell.
Can you twin Revivify? Corpses are objects but the spell refers to them as creatures. I'd imagine you could do this by RAI(since no ome questions when you do it), but what about RAW?
There was another thread about this a few months ago. I think it basically came down 50/50 whether people agreed that you couldn't and those that agreed that you could. Like you say - twinning only works on creatures - but dead bodies are objects - but also the spell refers to them as creatures.
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 need to square it with the problem of targeting an object, then I would just shrug and not target the object, but instead tell the DM you wish to target "a creature that has died within the last minute." Or in this case, two creatures.
Admittedly, it's an edge case.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
So basically nothing is twinable now.
Twinable spells would definitely benefit from a tagging system, like we have for concentration and ritual spells.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Many spells are twinnable. As an example, Banishment.
As long as you don't upcast it. :)
Just FYI :) ... it isn't my interpretation, it is one I found reading the forums and disagreed with but I can see how it could apply with the way the SAC entry is written.
If the SAC entry was talking about rolls the caster makes then twinning dragon's breath would be fine - cast it on two other creatures and the caster isn't rolling any more dice. The requirement for using twin spell "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn’t have a range of self" - RAW that should work fine for Dragon's breath.
The SAC entry currently says:
"Can my sorcerer use Twinned Spell to affect a particular spell? You can use Twinned Spell on a spell that ...
• targets only one creature
• doesn’t have a range of self
• is incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level"
This is the first part and it is ambiguous. What does the third bullet mean? The intent appears to be to exclude spells that themselves could target additional creatures after they are cast (like dragon's breath). It perhaps should have said "the spell's effect is incapable of targeting ...". Or perhaps it should have said that you could not twin spells that give the target the ability to use an AoE.
However, in the section where they try to clarify their intent they make the following statement:
"The spell lets you make a roll of any kind that can affect more than one creature before the spell’s duration expires."
"You" in this context is presumably the target of the twinned spell not the caster since in the case of twinned haste or twinned dragons breath, the caster doesn't roll any more dice unless they were also a target of the spell. I think, again, the intent was to limit the ability to twin spells that target a single creature which also give that creature an ongoing ability to do something to multiple other creatures simultaneously (eg dragons breath). However, their design intent bullet doesn't state that - it says make "a roll of any kind" which would include attack rolls "that can affect more that one creature" it doesn't say simultaneously. So a spell giving a creature an extra attack every round fits the design intent described by this last bullet - which includes Haste.
Personally, I don't think that is correct, it is just another example of bad writing and poorly thought out rules "clarifications". I think the intent was to prevent twinning spells granting abilities to the target of the spell that in turn allow them to target multiple creatures simultaneously but they didn't do a good job of stating that.
Anyway, I'm not sure that there are that many spells intended to be affected by that particular SAC "clarification" except Dragons breath.
My reading of the RAW of twin spell would allow dragon's breath, the spell when cast only effects one creature. JC's tweet seems like an errata to me where a specific rule overrides a general one. So I'd be fine if my DM ruled with JC but I don't think RAW aligns with his ruling.
This just seems to be a knee jerk reaction, the twinning effect on static bonuses is massively more powerful than random bonuses. Simple example twinned mage armour gives a base AC of 13 that's 15% less likely to be hit by any number of creatures you can encounter for 8 HOURS. Twinning is expensive on sorcery points, limited to one class and is it's benefit to having a limit imposed to its flexibility. If there is a real balance issue relax the spell list and increase the sorcery point cost.
I think Haste should be a viable candidate for twinning. Judging by the information at the top of the post and reviewing the language in the spell. It really boils down to the interpretation of " Choose a willing creature that you can see within range. " and "Haste lets you make attack rolls that can affect more than one creature before the spell expires. "
I read the first section in the manner that "a" = 1, therefor naturally the spell can't target more than one character.
I read the second part where "haste let's you make attack roles that can affect more than one creater." in the manner that it's not you (the caster) that's making the attacks, it's your fighter friend you supercharged. Therefor you (the caster) is not doing anything wrong, you'd still have your one action/concentration per turn..
Haste is twinnable.
The spell effect is that you get an extra action. "You" do.
The action is now your action. What you do with it is a result of you. And not a direct "effect" of the spell.
So the spell only targets one creature. That creature is free to target whoever he wants.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
My thread discussing the implications of a brand-new (at the time) SAC article three years ago doesn't really have much relevance in the present.
"Not all those who wander are lost"