Page 102 of PHB says when a spell is cast with the twinning "that target only one creature and doesn't have a range of self" you can "target a second creature in range with the same spell"
Does you interpret that it could be used with a touch attack spell, such as shocking grasp, on a second creature within melee? For example, shocking grasp affecting two orcs within 5 feet with one casting of the spell, spending the appropriate sorcery points.
Thanks
Seems so. It does not exclude touch in its limitations so yeah. You could twin a touch spell.
Here is a little more from the official FAQ.
QuoteTwinned 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.
Quote from: Omega;881174Seems so. It does not exclude touch in its limitations so yeah. You could twin a touch spell.
Here is a little more from the official FAQ.
In addition to all that, it really doesn't look game-breaking either, so I personally wouldn't sweat it.
And a related personal question.
Do you think Ligntning and especially Chain Lightning could be twinned? Both target one creature. But can hit things past the creature. The twinning description does not seem to exclude "beam" spells like that. Seems a bit overpowered to allow?
I believe lightning bolt has a range of self. So no.
Quote from: Vic99;881142Page 102 of PHB says when a spell is cast with the twinning "that target only one creature and doesn't have a range of self" you can "target a second creature in range with the same spell"
Does you interpret that it could be used with a touch attack spell, such as shocking grasp, on a second creature within melee? For example, shocking grasp affecting two orcs within 5 feet with one casting of the spell, spending the appropriate sorcery points.
Thanks
Spells can call for a melee spell attack roll, or a ranged spell attack roll. The twinning does not use either of those terms so the only thing you need to do is look at the range of the spell. If it is not self then twinning can be used with that spell. In general spells that describe the attack as touching the target are using a melee spell attack roll.
Quote from: Omega;881178And a related personal question.
Do you think Ligntning and especially Chain Lightning could be twinned? Both target one creature. But can hit things past the creature. The twinning description does not seem to exclude "beam" spells like that. Seems a bit overpowered to allow?
Lightning has a range of Self (100-foot line) so the answer is no.
Chain Lightning has a 150 feet range. So twinning can be used on the Chain Lightning spell.
Quote from: Vic99;881198I believe lightning bolt has a range of self. So no.
Self. Just noticed that. Thanks!
Explains why my wizard kept zapping himself, and the rest of the party, and occasionally the monster, and possibly some innocent, or not-so-innocent bystanders...
:o
Quote from: estar;881224Lightning has a range of Self (100-foot line) so the answer is no.
Chain Lightning has a 150 feet range. So twinning can be used on the Chain Lightning spell.
I havent used lightning since the playtest. And in the playtest it did not have a range of self. It is not a Warlock spell so i have not had any reason to scrutinize it.
I asked because was watching a recent anime that is based off D&D and one of the characters used twin empowered chain lightning.
Quote from: estar;881224Chain Lightning has a 150 feet range. So twinning can be used on the Chain Lightning spell.
Except Chain Lightning can target multiple creatures (up to four, the additional targets being close to the original one)). The test is whether the spell is capable of targeting multiple creatures (at the level it's cast at), not whether it does in a particular case. So Chain Lightning even with only one creature available as a target can't be twinned.
Yes/No/Maybee.
The chain lightning desc says it targets a single creature. From there it can leap to new targets. But the initial target is just one. And thats what Twinned applies. Targets only one creature. Chain lightning says target one creature. Yet it can hop.
But of course read it as you will. Its a gray area.
As usual, Crawford says No. Mearls says Yes.
Quote from: Player's Handbook Errata Version 1.1Twinned 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.
Quote from: Player's Basic Rules Version 0.2You create a bolt of lightning that arcs toward a target of your choice that you can see within range. 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. A target can be a creature or an object and can be targeted by only one of the bolts.
A target must make a Dexterity saving throw. The target takes 10d8 lightning damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 7th level or higher, one additional bolt leaps from the first target to another target for each slot level above 6th.
A spell descriptions that includes "other targets" where every target takes the same damage? It's pretty black and white.
Chain Lightning is a "Nope." at my table.
Quote from: rawma;882694A spell descriptions that includes "other targets" where every target takes the same damage? It's pretty black and white.
Its pretty not black and white. The initial stroke targets one. Even at higher levels you cant split it up. After that initial target,
then it leaps. It is the wording that is the issue. It is one of the many oddly worded bits in 5e that leaves it up to interpretation.
Personally as a DM I'd explain my thoughts on it. (See below.) Then poll the players for what they think. Nox is playing a Sorcerer so it may come up if he ever gets Chain Lightning.
You can definitely Twin Disintegrate.
ow. In fact. If you can't Twin Chain lightning then Disintegrate is the only 6th level Sorcerer combat spell you can Twin.
Quick calculations. Disintegrate averages 75 (max 100) damage. Chain Lightning averages 45 (max 80), so average 90 (max 160) if you could catch two targets with the twinned version so they then zap eachother. The averages (assuming a secondary zap) aren't too far off from eachother. But the max for Chain is prohibitively more. As a DM I'd say if the Sorcerer was ok with dropping Chain down to a d6, thus averaging 70 (Max 120, also assuming a secondary zap) then sure. Can Twin it. Otherwise. No.
(Or even down to a d4. Which would dock the average to 50 and the max to 80.)
Quote from: rawma;882391Except Chain Lightning can target multiple creatures (up to four, the additional targets being close to the original one)). The test is whether the spell is capable of targeting multiple creatures (at the level it's cast at), not whether it does in a particular case. So Chain Lightning even with only one creature available as a target can't be twinned.
Except that the chain lightning spell starts off only with one target. It is my view that the limitation imposed on twinning is meant so that it did not include area effect spells like fireball. While Chain Lightning effect more than one target it is not an area effect spell. Instead it starts off targeting an individual and it gets extra attacks afterwards.
It is ambiguous and there is a case for ruling either way.
Quote from: estar;882773Except that the chain lightning spell starts off only with one target. It is my view that the limitation imposed on twinning is meant so that it did not include area effect spells like fireball. While Chain Lightning effect more than one target it is not an area effect spell. Instead it starts off targeting an individual and it gets extra attacks afterwards.
It is ambiguous and there is a case for ruling either way.
No, it's not really. I mean the spell hits the first target then bounces up to three more. Twinned states it must be incapable (as in not able to) target more than one creature, not at start, but at all; the spell must not be able to target more than one, ever.
By the fact that Chain Lightning seeks out up to three more during that casting, that says it's targeting more than one, hence Chain Lightning is disqualified from being Twinned.
So what do you all think about allowing it with the damage dice reduced down to a d6 or a d4?
Quote from: Omega;882870So what do you all think about allowing it with the damage dice reduced down to a d6 or a d4?
Allowing what? :confused:
Allowing Chain Lightning to be twinned if the damage were more on par with or even less than twinned Disintigrate? See my notes above for the averages and maxes.
Quote from: Omega;882875Allowing Chain Lightning to be twinned if the damage were more on par with or even less than twinned Disintigrate? See my notes above for the averages and maxes.
Are the averages spread out several targets? Because base Chain Lightning can kill up to four 30HP or less targets in a single hit (on average), if you switch it down to d4s, you can hit up to 8, but for only 20hp or less (again, on average.) If you must use a damage spell (Save Or Dies are still king) 7th level Fireball is still more efficient.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;882879Are the averages spread out several targets? Because base Chain Lightning can kill up to four 30HP or less targets in a single hit (on average), if you switch it down to d4s, you can hit up to 8, but for only 20hp or less (again, on average.) If you must use a damage spell (Save Or Dies are still king) 7th level Fireball is still more efficient.
5e Chain can tag each person only once. It acts like a somewhat limited fireball. Target someone and then it jumps to 3 other people in range. So assuming you twinned it. 4 people could each be hit twice. Assuming there were 4 present. Theoretically you could spread it out and indeed zap up to 8 once each. Hence my thought of docking a twinned chain down to a d4. It is a-lot of potential damage. But situational.
Twinning a spell is useless if there is not a second target.
Quote from: Omega;8828925e Chain can tag each person only once. It acts like a somewhat limited fireball. Target someone and then it jumps to 3 other people in range. So assuming you twinned it. 4 people could each be hit twice. Assuming there were 4 present. Theoretically you could spread it out and indeed zap up to 8 once each. Hence my thought of docking a twinned chain down to a d4. It is a-lot of potential damage. But situational.
Twinning a spell is useless if there is not a second target.
Hence why I think it would go for 8 targets instead of hitting the same 4 twice.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;882896Hence why I think it would go for 8 targets instead of hitting the same 4 twice.
In that case everyone would only be hit once which is average 45 (max 80) unaltered, 35(60) at a d6 and 25(40) at a d4.
My thought was based on the sorcerer twinning to catch two people standing close enough the secondary bolts could leap to the other. Even assuming they did not it seems possible some secondary targets might get zapped twice under the right circumstances?
Quote from: Omega;882899In that case everyone would only be hit once which is average 45 (max 80) unaltered, 35(60) at a d6 and 25(40) at a d4.
My thought was based on the sorcerer twinning to catch two people standing close enough the secondary bolts could leap to the other. Even assuming they did not it seems possible some secondary targets might get zapped twice under the right circumstances?
Sounds to me like a bigger math headache than necessary. :)
Its more the wording of the spell. It hits one person and then leaps out to up to 3 more around that person. and those secondary bolts cant hit the same person.
So if you cast it at a pair of people two of the secondary bolts do nothing.
Now twin the spell and the secondary on both should jump to the other. Add in a 3rd person and a secondary from both initial targets should jump to the 3rd person. Hence why I was calculating damage based on a double hit.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;882868No, it's not really. I mean the spell hits the first target then bounces up to three more. Twinned states it must be incapable (as in not able to) target more than one creature, not at start, but at all; the spell must not be able to target more than one, ever.
Chain Lightning is not a typical multiple target spell. It starts with one target and then after that resolved branches out to other targets. I stand by what I said, a ruling either way has merit.
Quote from: estar;882944Chain Lightning is not a typical multiple target spell. It starts with one target and then after that resolved branches out to other targets. I stand by what I said, a ruling either way has merit.
That's just it, though. IT IS. It will seek out 3 other targets within reach. The way it worded says that it hits target 1, and if there are any within reach, it THEN attacks up to three more. There's no 'ifs' about it. A target in reach? Yes? Then hits. That's a multitarget spell, hence by my reading disqualified.
Quote from: estar;882944Chain Lightning is not a typical multiple target spell. It starts with one target and then after that resolved branches out to other targets. I stand by what I said, a ruling either way has merit.
It's unbelievable that anyone would insist that a spell that explicitly says "targets", plural, only has one target. By the same reasoning, Fireball doesn't target any creature; it targets a point, and it just so happens that creatures near that point take damage. :rolleyes:
In particular, if you have exactly four creatures close enough that they are the only possible targets of Chain Lightning, then allowing it to be twinned would mean each of the four would get hit twice by it if the initial target were two different creatures among the four. The point of twinning is to hit two different creatures with the same spell, not to double it up on one creature, let alone double it up on four different creatures. Unless someone wants to argue that "target a second creature" includes targeting the same creature again.
Quote from: rawma;882970It's unbelievable that anyone would insist that a spell that explicitly says "targets", plural, only has one target.
uh. No it doesnt. It says "archs towards
a target of your choice." Singular.
Therein lies the problem.
A fireball hits everything in the blast all at once. A regular lightning bolt travels on through in a line. (and has range self so is automatically disqualified.) Not sure but Chain Lightning may be the only Sorcerer spell in the book with this odd setup that isnt specifically locked down by its own wording. maybe they forgot the "range: self" flag?
Quote from: Omega;882994uh. No it doesnt. It says "archs towards a target of your choice." Singular.
Therein lies the problem.
A fireball hits everything in the blast all at once. A regular lightning bolt travels on through in a line. (and has range self so is automatically disqualified.) Not sure but Chain Lightning may be the only Sorcerer spell in the book with this odd setup that isnt specifically locked down by its own wording. maybe they forgot the "range: self" flag?
But the issue is that if there are multiple targets within reach it automatically goes for them. That's the thing. The wording of Twinned Spell says 'Single target
ONLY'. Which means that because even though Chain Lightning can target a single foe, the fact that it automatically targets and hits up to three more on top of the first takes it out of the running.
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. :D
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? :D