Which makes my point. Its worded such that it can swing either way. Saying "No." is perfectly valid. As noted. Id say no as well because as it stands if allowed it would be alot more potent than the only other spell at that level that can be Twinned.

Quote from: Omega;882994uh. No it doesnt. It says "archs towards a target of your choice." Singular.

Yes, it does say "targets". As I quoted earlier, "Three bolts then leap from that target to as many as three other targets, each of which must be within 30 feet of the first target." (And since the duration is instantaneous, all that happens at once, same as with Fireball or Lightning Bolt.)

Quote from: rawma;883166Yes, it does say "targets".

Except that is not the initial bolt. That is the secondary bolts. The initial bolt reads "a target". Hence the wording problem.

Twinning says the spell has to "target only one creature." Chain Lightning targets only one creature. Hence the wording problem.

Accept that Chain Lightning is an oddity and how we read it may be different from someone elses. The DM at that other table said "Yes you can." while you or I say "No you cant." And that is a ruling. Not a rule.

Easiest fixes are to tighten up Twinnings wording. Or add "self" to Chain Lightning. I vote the second as it seems like an omission from the spell range anyhow. (Was surprised it wasnt in the errata.) Considering some of the other errors in the PHB it makes sense.

Quote from: Omega;883258Except that is not the initial bolt. That is the secondary bolts. The initial bolt reads "a target". Hence the wording problem.

Twinning says the spell has to "target only one creature." Chain Lightning targets only one creature. Hence the wording problem.

Accept that Chain Lightning is an oddity and how we read it may be different from someone elses. The DM at that other table said "Yes you can." while you or I say "No you cant." And that is a ruling. Not a rule.

Easiest fixes are to tighten up Twinnings wording. Or add "self" to Chain Lightning. I vote the second as it seems like an omission from the spell range anyhow. (Was surprised it wasnt in the errata.) Considering some of the other errors in the PHB it makes sense.

I am not trying to be an ass here, but reread Twinning Spell.  The spell doesn't need change.  People just need to read Twinning Spell.

That is the problem. It can be interpreted either way. Or even several other ways.

As noted. I lean to "No" and believe that Chain is missing a "self" flag that regular Lightning Bolt has.

Quote from: Omega;883378That is the problem. It can be interpreted either way. Or even several other ways.

As noted. I lean to "No" and believe that Chain is missing a "self" flag that regular Lightning Bolt has.

What part of "spell that targets only one creature" are having problems with?  It does not matter WHEN it targets the other creatures, the fact that Chain Lightning DOES target more than one excludes it.  Done deal.  Stick a fork in it.  End of Line.

And really, if you have a Chain Lightning loaded up (and are silly enough to use it, I mean, you need to be around 13-14th level, so many better spells to choose from) are you going to waste it on a single target anyway?

The part where Chain Lightning only targets one creature? That one? Yeah. That one. Still a problem.

Heres one people on another forum were discussing. The idea of focusing a cast on one target to allow twinning at another. EG: aim all the your magic missiles at one enemy and the twinned mms all at another.

Quote from: Omega;883381The part where Chain Lightning only targets one creature? That one? Yeah. That one. Still a problem.

WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT?  It hops to three other targets in reach!  It hits one, and if there is a new target, it bounces to them.  It's not an option to hold back, it automatically hits multiple targets if they are available.

Quote from: Omega;883381Heres one people on another forum were discussing. The idea of focusing a cast on one target to allow twinning at another. EG: aim all the your magic missiles at one enemy and the twinned mms all at another.

Magic Missile is also ineligible for Twinning.  It can hit three targets per casting.  That excludes it.  It's not single target ONLY.

Because if MM can be twinned, so can Fireball.  If you aim it at one target.  Which means Scorching Ray can be as well, if you aim at one target.

And that's what's blowing my mind here.  How is anyone overlooking the word ONLY.  It's in the Twinned Spell metamagic description!  If it targets more than one, even as an afterthought, it's not eligible!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;883386Because if MM can be twinned, so can Fireball.  If you aim it at one target.  Which means Scorching Ray can be as well, if you aim at one target.

And that's what's blowing my mind here.  How is anyone overlooking the word ONLY.  It's in the Twinned Spell metamagic description!  If it targets more than one, even as an afterthought, it's not eligible!

Funny you should mention that. The discussion touched on the idea of allowing fireball if each one hit only one person.

That is the thing. Others are reading only one target in really different ways.

Someone asked this one recently. What about Mending? Can that be twinned to mend two items at once? Or Light to light up two objects at once?

Quote from: Omega;883410Funny you should mention that. The discussion touched on the idea of allowing fireball if each one hit only one person.

The one use of twinning I have seen in play was at a convention where someone twinned a Fireball (aimed at a single creature) and then targeted the same creature with the second Fireball. The DM allowed it, but it rises to the level of "ignoring the rules", in my view.

QuoteSomeone asked this one recently. What about Mending? Can that be twinned to mend two items at once? Or Light to light up two objects at once?

Why would you ever twin Mending? It's a cantrip; just cast it again. (If some situation really called for Mending things faster than one per round, I guess I would allow it; although Twinning talks about targeting one creature, Mending has a single target, albeit not actually a creature, but Mending two things at once is hardly overpowered for the point it costs.) Light I would probably also allow (and that might be useful more frequently if the party were going to split, since recasting Light cancels the first casting). Hold Portal for two doors? Sure, why not?

But I doubt I would allow a twinned Wall of Fire or similar for two walls, even if no creatures were in the area of effect--I think as a general rule I would hesitate to allow twinning of spells that do significant damage if it's not clearly within the letter of the spell's description. I doubt I would allow twinning Conjure Animals used to summon a single CR2 beast, although one could argue that it has a single target more convincingly than for Chain Lightning.

I stand by my reading of Chain Lightning as having multiple targets, but even without accepting the additional targets as targets, it adds too much effect if twinned: in fairly common circumstances, you go from affecting four creatures to affecting eight creatures (or, perhaps worse, having double effect on four creatures). That violates the spirit of the twinned description at least, and thus goes beyond "ruling" to "house rule" if not "ignoring the rules".

I don't play 5e, so I have nothing riding on the outcome, but it seems pretty clear cut.

Quote from: 5e PHB Errata by WotCTwinned Spell (p. 102). To be eligible for Twinned Spell, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell's current level.

It doesn't say "if more than one target will be hit by the spell", it says "must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell's current level."

The capability doesn't change depending on who is in range.  Is Chain Lightning at the level you cast it (NOT according to current conditions), capable of targeting more than one creature?  Yes? No Twinning. Done.

If you're hinging "capable" on there being only one target, saying "It is incapable of targeting more than one creature because there is only one there", you need to flex your roleplaying muscles, step out of the headspace of your Sorceror and enter the headspace of the people who write Magic card descriptions for a living.

Quote from: CRKrueger;883455The capability doesn't change depending on who is in range.  Is Chain Lightning at the level you cast it (NOT according to current conditions), capable of targeting more than one creature?  Yes? No Twinning. Done.

Which again brings us right back around to Chain Lightning which specifically says that on cast it must target one creature. One person reads that as allowing twinning. Someone else says no never ever. All because of the odd way the spell is worded and functions.

How did Twinning and Chain Lightning work in 3 or 4e? Was it possible to Twin it back then?

Quote from: Omega;883707Which again brings us right back around to Chain Lightning which specifically says that on cast it must target one creature. One person reads that as allowing twinning. Someone else says no never ever. All because of the odd way the spell is worded and functions.

How did Twinning and Chain Lightning work in 3 or 4e? Was it possible to Twin it back then?

It must target one, first, fine; but it is capable of targeting more?  Yes, so no Twinning.

Twin spell in 3rd was some crazyass metamagic feat that allowed you fully double the spell but at 4 levels higher, so can't do that with Chain Lightning anyway, but you could totally dump 2 Fireballs on someone, but they were neutered, baby 3e fireballs so who cared?