Unsurprisingly, this appears to be intended to include Dragon's Breath, but by specifying that you cannot twin a spell that can target an object, they may have spread the net pretty wide on the list of spells that cannot be twinned (or maybe I'm just reading this wrong) Would that mean that spells likeLevitate, Disintegrate, Dispel Magic, Remove Curse, and even Fire Bolt cannot be twinned?
I think what they mean by can't target an object as part of their design intent is can't target an object exclusively. Fire Bolt can target creatures or objects - so can be twinning while targetting creatures but not while targetting objects.
Plus - those latter bullet points are their RAI - not RAW.
I think what they mean by can't target an object as part of their design intent is can't target an object exclusively. Fire Bolt can target creatures or objects - so can be twinning while targetting creatures but not while targetting objects.
Plus - those latter bullet points are their RAI - not RAW.
It’s very possible that that’s what they mean, but it’s absolutely not what they said, and that distinction is why Sage Advice exists to begin with, so it’s not a great look for them XD
Well, it is part of why sage advice exists. The other part of the reason it exists is that they've decided to errata very little with 5th edition, and instead decided to go the route of offering their (SAC) explanations of how they expect the rules to work as written rather than changing how they're written.
I think what they mean by can't target an object as part of their design intent is can't target an object exclusively. Fire Bolt can target creatures or objects - so can be twinning while targetting creatures but not while targetting objects.
Plus - those latter bullet points are their RAI - not RAW.
I think you're looking at this the right way. But even so, it's such an arbitrary restriction. You can twin fire bolt two goblins, but you cannot twin fire bolt a goblin and that wooden door over there. Who cares? Why does it matter?
You're also right on this one. It's most certainly RAI. But there it is written down in SAC, so it's "official" RAI now? I don't know if I can think of other situations where RAW makes explicit reference to RAI.
I think it's weird because the first 3 bullet points are the crucial specific RAW. The rest are all "use these criteria if you're not sure" - the RAI - but people will take them as RAW. It is bizarre.
I've never been particularly happy with the wording on the SAC (or the rules in general) at the best of times - so this is just more of that.
As for twinning against objects - I can see why they would want to avoid that. Just imagine a Divine Soul twinning Holy Weapon. Because it targets the weapons - and not the creatures holding them it won't work. It could be seen as too strong.
I think it's weird because the first 3 bullet points are the crucial specific RAW. The rest are all "use these criteria if you're not sure" - the RAI - but people will take them as RAW. It is bizarre.
You'd have to pretty much ignore all of the words between the two bulleted lists in order to take anything on the lower list as RAW.
But for example, the words "only targets one creature" could quite literally mean exactly that: if it targets one creature or object it doesn't "only target one creature" by a most strict reading of those words.
Well, sort of. I'm just saying that "targets only one creature" doesn't at all imply that objects are allowed, so I don't get how pointing that out is a problem.
Fire bolt targets only one creature in the sense that it does not target multiple creatures. I always read the emphasis on "one." But since you point it out it does not target only one creature because it targets a creature or object. Maybe it's because the sorcerer in our party has always twinned fire bolt (against creatures) that I never thought about it in those terms.
It seems mean to all of a sudden tell my sorcerer he can't twin fire bolt anymore so I'm going to have to bypass that rule for the rest of this campaign.
Well, sort of. I'm just saying that "targets only one creature" doesn't at all imply that objects are allowed, so I don't get how pointing that out is a problem.
The problem is:
The spell can target an object.
Not the spell only targets an object, but rather, if it can target an object, even if "one creature" rather than an object is not the target of that particular spell casting, it cannot be twinned.
<edit> Which is exactly what you said in #7, my bad. ;-)
But I think the last two bullets are really where the meat of the new material ended up, and I actually respect their intent with those. A spell like ice knife "targets" one creature but hits all of its neighbors, and now this clearly indicates that they intend for that spell to not be twinnable. I wouldn't have allowed it anyway, because it seems obvious to me that twinning spells with area effects wasn't the intent - but now we have some guidance. If your DM thinks that twinning AOE spells is fun, he can go ahead and let you.
Fire bolt targets only one creature in the sense that it does not target multiple creatures. I always read the emphasis on "one." But since you point it out it does not target only one creature because it targets a creature or object. Maybe it's because the sorcerer in our party has always twinned fire bolt (against creatures) that I never thought about it in those terms.
It seems mean to all of a sudden tell my sorcerer he can't twin fire bolt anymore so I'm going to have to bypass that rule for the rest of this campaign.
That is where all that text in the middle comes into play: you're free to do that.
But this does point out a bit of a double standard - why can I twin a spell that in another casting could target multiple creatures (such as charm person) when I cannot twin a spell against targeting a (single) creature (like fire bolt) that in another casting could target an object. If the rules are about the number of creatures are specific to the particular casting, then shouldn't it be that way for the rules for creatures v objects? Is it because every first level charm person can only target one person, whereas every fire bolt could target an object?
I think the last bullet is the really problematic one to be honest.
"The spell lets you make a roll of any kind that can affect more than one creature before the spell expires"
Haste lets you make attack rolls that can affect more than one creature before the spell expires. So haste is not a valid spell for twinning.
Enlarge/Reduce can not only target objects but it gives you additional damage rolls which can affect another creature.
Enhance Ability charisma gives you advantage on charisma checks - this gives you a greater chance of affecting other creatures since you get to roll an additional die.
Basically, any spells that give a creature something that can affect other creatures with an extra die roll of any kind are considered invalid targets for twinning.
Personally, I think this is just a case of them not thinking it through.
I think the last bullet is the really problematic one to be honest.
"The spell lets you make a roll of any kind that can affect more than one creature before the spell expires"
Haste lets you make attack rolls that can affect more than one creature before the spell expires. So haste is not a valid spell for twinning.
Enlarge/Reduce can not only target objects but it gives you additional damage rolls which can affect another creature.
Enhance Ability charisma gives you advantage on charisma checks - this gives you a greater chance of affecting other creatures since you get to roll an additional die.
Basically, any spells that give a creature something that can affect other creatures with an extra die roll of any kind are considered invalid targets for twinning.
Personally, I think this is just a case of them not thinking it through.
Yep, this issue (and others that have been brought up) are all super wonky. IMO, it's because of the lack of concrete, meaningful terms (like how "target" apparently applies to the people who get hit with the blast of fire from Dragon's Breath, not just the "target" of the spell) in the core rulebooks.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want the PHB to read like the rules of Magic: The Gathering...but...
I think the last bullet is the really problematic one to be honest.
Basically, any spells that give a creature something that can affect other creatures with an extra die roll of any kind are considered invalid targets for twinning.
Is this really so limiting though? You can still cast the spells, you just need to cast it once per target.
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).
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).
This may be true as well, but the opposite is the case with regard to dragon's breath.
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."
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Unsurprisingly, this appears to be intended to include Dragon's Breath, but by specifying that you cannot twin a spell that can target an object, they may have spread the net pretty wide on the list of spells that cannot be twinned (or maybe I'm just reading this wrong) Would that mean that spells likeLevitate, Disintegrate, Dispel Magic, Remove Curse, and even Fire Bolt cannot be twinned?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think what they mean by can't target an object as part of their design intent is can't target an object exclusively. Fire Bolt can target creatures or objects - so can be twinning while targetting creatures but not while targetting objects.
Plus - those latter bullet points are their RAI - not RAW.
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).
It’s very possible that that’s what they mean, but it’s absolutely not what they said, and that distinction is why Sage Advice exists to begin with, so it’s not a great look for them XD
Well, it is part of why sage advice exists. The other part of the reason it exists is that they've decided to errata very little with 5th edition, and instead decided to go the route of offering their (SAC) explanations of how they expect the rules to work as written rather than changing how they're written.
Just weird stuff all around on that entry.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think it's weird because the first 3 bullet points are the crucial specific RAW. The rest are all "use these criteria if you're not sure" - the RAI - but people will take them as RAW. It is bizarre.
I've never been particularly happy with the wording on the SAC (or the rules in general) at the best of times - so this is just more of that.
As for twinning against objects - I can see why they would want to avoid that. Just imagine a Divine Soul twinning Holy Weapon. Because it targets the weapons - and not the creatures holding them it won't work. It could be seen as too strong.
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).
You'd have to pretty much ignore all of the words between the two bulleted lists in order to take anything on the lower list as RAW.
But for example, the words "only targets one creature" could quite literally mean exactly that: if it targets one creature or object it doesn't "only target one creature" by a most strict reading of those words.
RAIAW?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Well, sort of. I'm just saying that "targets only one creature" doesn't at all imply that objects are allowed, so I don't get how pointing that out is a problem.
Fire bolt targets only one creature in the sense that it does not target multiple creatures. I always read the emphasis on "one." But since you point it out it does not target only one creature because it targets a creature or object. Maybe it's because the sorcerer in our party has always twinned fire bolt (against creatures) that I never thought about it in those terms.
It seems mean to all of a sudden tell my sorcerer he can't twin fire bolt anymore so I'm going to have to bypass that rule for the rest of this campaign.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The problem is:
Not the spell only targets an object, but rather, if it can target an object, even if "one creature" rather than an object is not the target of that particular spell casting, it cannot be twinned.
<edit> Which is exactly what you said in #7, my bad. ;-)
But I think the last two bullets are really where the meat of the new material ended up, and I actually respect their intent with those. A spell like ice knife "targets" one creature but hits all of its neighbors, and now this clearly indicates that they intend for that spell to not be twinnable. I wouldn't have allowed it anyway, because it seems obvious to me that twinning spells with area effects wasn't the intent - but now we have some guidance. If your DM thinks that twinning AOE spells is fun, he can go ahead and let you.
That is where all that text in the middle comes into play: you're free to do that.
But this does point out a bit of a double standard - why can I twin a spell that in another casting could target multiple creatures (such as charm person) when I cannot twin a spell against targeting a (single) creature (like fire bolt) that in another casting could target an object. If the rules are about the number of creatures are specific to the particular casting, then shouldn't it be that way for the rules for creatures v objects? Is it because every first level charm person can only target one person, whereas every fire bolt could target an object?
Metamagic be complicated, yo
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think the last bullet is the really problematic one to be honest.
"The spell lets you make a roll of any kind that can affect more than one creature before the spell expires"
Haste lets you make attack rolls that can affect more than one creature before the spell expires. So haste is not a valid spell for twinning.
Enlarge/Reduce can not only target objects but it gives you additional damage rolls which can affect another creature.
Enhance Ability charisma gives you advantage on charisma checks - this gives you a greater chance of affecting other creatures since you get to roll an additional die.
Basically, any spells that give a creature something that can affect other creatures with an extra die roll of any kind are considered invalid targets for twinning.
Personally, I think this is just a case of them not thinking it through.
Yep, this issue (and others that have been brought up) are all super wonky. IMO, it's because of the lack of concrete, meaningful terms (like how "target" apparently applies to the people who get hit with the blast of fire from Dragon's Breath, not just the "target" of the spell) in the core rulebooks.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want the PHB to read like the rules of Magic: The Gathering...but...
Partway through the quest for absolute truth.
Is this really so limiting though? You can still cast the spells, you just need to cast it once per target.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
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).
This may be true as well, but the opposite is the case with regard to dragon's breath.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
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.