Quicken vs Twin

[Shadow]

Scorching Ray is a hot button issue on this forum and many others with regards to metamagic.
It is my opinoin that every DM needs to take the RAI into account when dealing with metamagic.

First, let's look at a couple of general rules.
Spellcasting --> Casting Time --> Bonus Action reads:
Bonus Action
A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn. You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.
This a a general rule.

Spellcasting --> Duration --> Concentration reads:
Casting another spell that requires concentration.
You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration. You can’t concentrate on two spells at once.
This is a general rule.

Metamagic:
Quickened Spell
When you cast a spell that has a casting time of 1 action, you can spend 2 sorcery points to change the casting time to 1 bonus action for this casting.

Twinned Spell
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 (1 sorcery point if the spell is a cantrip).
These are specific rules.

The way that I interpret RAI:
Quicken Spell:
The point of the feature is that it changes the second spell to a bonus action so that your turn follows normal action economy. This specific rule trumps the general rule requiring the second spell be a cantrip.
You can Quicken one in order to cast two Scorching Rays, for example.

Twinned Spell:
The point of this feature is that it basically allows you to cast a single target concentration spell on more than one target without breaking concentration on the first, and you can cast single target instantaneous spells (such as ray of sickness) on more than one target.
You cannot Twin Scorching Ray, for example.

Discuss.

[Rummy]

I think the point of Quicken is to also use a cantrip when you cast what is normally a non bonus action spell. Thus scorching ray and fire bolt, not two scorching rays. Look at the cost of quicken -- 2 points. That is a minor investment. Compare to Twin where the price varies with spell level.

Twin says: Spell must target only one creature. Hmmm. It sure seems like you can twin Scorching Ray. But you might only get one additional ray. I dunno the best way to handle it. Might be cleaner to rule out any spell like scorching ray that could target multiple creatures.

[Shadow]

That would be a valid reading of quicken as well, if that's what you think they intended.
My point is that the RAW isn't God in this edition as it was in others.
The RAI are important for these questions.
As DM, it is your responsibility to determine what you feel the RAI was and rule accordingly.

Strictly speaking, from my interpretation, you are far better off Quickening any damage dealing spell than you are Twinning it.
Twin is intended to be used for concentration spells.
Incidentally, a simple houserule that each use of Quicken raises the cost by 1 sorcery point will also probably be used at my table.

[TheOOB]

That would be a valid reading of quicken as well, if that's what you think they intended.
My point is that the RAW isn't God in this edition as it was in others.
The RAI are important for these questions.
As DM, it is your responsibility to determine what you feel the RAI was and rule accordingly.

RAW is 100% clear. You can't cast two spells a turn with quicken spell unless one of those spells is a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

RAW is just as important in this edition as it is in every other edition.

DM's can't determine RAI, only designers, and when RAW is this clear it's pretty pointless anyways.

If, as a DM you want to allow quicken spell to allow players to cast two spells per turn, you can, it's your game.

[Shadow]

RAW is 100% clear. You can't cast two spells a turn with quicken spell unless one of those spells is a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

Here's a question for you.
If quicken was only intended to be used with cantrips (because a strict reading of the general rule means that you cannot, under any circumstances cast two spells on the same turn unless one of them is a cantrip), then why didn't they just call it Quicken Cantrip instead of Quicken Spell?

[Mr.Moron]

Here's a question for you.
If quicken was only intended to be used with cantrips (because a strict reading of the general rule means that you cannot, under any circumstances cast two spells on the same turn unless one of them is a cantrip), then why didn't they just call it Quicken Cantrip instead of Quicken Spell?

You don't quicken the cantrip. You quicken the spell and then once you've done that you're restricted to only casting cantrips. The bonus action rule doesn't care what you've turned into a bonus action, full spell, cantrip, steak bomb sub, whatever. All it says that once you've cast as a bonus action anything else you cast in a turn has to be a cantrip.:

EDIT: To clarify.

A: Cantrip -> Cantrip (Bonus Action) - Legal

You cast a cantrip. Then you try to cast a cantrip as a bonus action and you can because you haven't cast any other non-cantrip spells this turn.

B: Cantrip -> Full Spell (Bonus Action) - Legal

You cast a cantrip. Then you try to cast a normal spell as a bonus action. You can because you haven't cast any other non-cantrip spells this turn.

C: Full Spell (Bonus Action) -> Cantrip - Legal

You cast a normal spell as bonus action. Then you try to cast a cantrip normally. You can because it's a cantrip and a cantrip qualifies under the clause that the non-quicked spell must be a cantrip.

D: Cantrip (Bonus Action) -> Full Spell - Illegal

You cast a cantrip as a bonus action. Then you try to cast a full normally. You can't because you've quicked the cantrip and all other spells cast in the same round as a quickened spell have to be cantrips if anything.

E: Full Spell -> Cantrip (Bonus Action) - Illegal.

You cast a normal spell. Then you try to cast a cantrip as a bonus action because you've cast a non-trip spell outside the scope of quicken and you cannot meet quickens "No casting other spells as non cantrips" clause. See D.


F: Full Spell (Bonus Action) -> Full Spell -> Illegal

You can't. See D.

E: Full Spell -> Full Spell (Bonus Action) -> Illegal

You can't. See D.


Basically if you're quickening in the round, the other spell has to be a cantrip - even if you're quickening a cantrip!

[illyrus]

I'd go with quicken allows bonus normal spell + cantrip than 2 normal spells. While there is some use for blasting I can also see some use for things like mirror image + blast cantrip, blade ward + normal spell, or normal spell + non-spellcasting action like disengage or even dash.

[Oscredwin]

You don't quicken the cantrip. You quicken the spell and then once you've done that you're restricted to only casting cantrips. The bonus action rule doesn't care what you've turned into a bonus action, full spell, cantrip, steak bomb sub, whatever. All it says that once you've cast as a bonus action anything else you cast in a turn has to be a cantrip.:

Cantrip -> Cantrip (Bonus Action) - Legal
Cantrip -> Full Spell (Bonus Action) - Legal
Full Spell -> Cantrip (Bonus Action) - Legal
Full Spell (Bonus Action) -> Cantrip - Legal
Cantrip (Bonus Action) -> Full Spell - Illegal
Full Spell (Bonus Action) -> Full Spell -> Illegal
Full Spell -> Full Spell (Bonus Action) -> Illegal

You leave out:
Full Spell (Bonus action) -> Use a Wand
Full Spell (Bonus action) -> Use another magic item
Full Spell (Bonus action) -> Attack because you're a gish build
Full Spell (Bonus action) -> Any action at all that isn't casting a spell

That can often be very important.

[DrLemniscate]

I would think Scorching Ray should be able to be Twinned.

First off, I come from a background of Magic: the Gathering. When I see an effect that copies a spell, I assume that it copies all modes. In this case, the mode is to do all the damage to a single target.

Secondly, if balance is a concern, Twinned Spell relies on spells being balanced at a non-Twinned level. If you don't want Scorching Ray twinned because it deals too much damage, maybe you should think about banning Scorching Ray when used as a single target spell.

The PHB is also very mindful of interactions. If it interfered with the usual limits to spells you can cast on your turn, it would say something.

[Mr.Moron]

You leave out:
Full Spell (Bonus action) -> Use a Wand
Full Spell (Bonus action) -> Use another magic item
Full Spell (Bonus action) -> Attack because you're a gish build
Full Spell (Bonus action) -> Any action at all that isn't casting a spell

That can often be very important.

Well yes obviously these are legal since the Bonus Action spell rules only interact with other spells. I'm not sure where one would find space to interpret they kept you from attacking, or dancing a jig. Unless the jig was also spell.

[Rummy]

You leave out:
Full Spell (Bonus action) -> Use a Wand
Full Spell (Bonus action) -> Use another magic item
Full Spell (Bonus action) -> Attack because you're a gish build
Full Spell (Bonus action) -> Any action at all that isn't casting a spell

That can often be very important.

Good point. Quicken is terrific for Gishes and for buffing spells like Mirror Image. I think quicken is prolly more useful in later levels when the sorcerer has more spell points and spell slots, so burning lots of resources to get a defensive buff and still shoot a cantrip is less of an issue.

[Ferrin33]

RAW and RAI are clear as day on Quicken. Quickened Spell gives you the ability to change one aspect of a spell(Cast it as a bonus action instead of an action by spending 2 sorcery points), and the rules state that you can only cast a cantrip after casting a spell as a bonus action that round. It specifically mentions that you can not cast another spell this turn unless said spell is a cantrip in the same round as you use your bonus action to cast a spell. The problem with the wording from my reading is the following;

Cast Fire Bolt with action, since this was a cantrip with a cast time of 1 action, you're still allowed to use a bonus action to cast a spell with a cast time of a bonus action. No problems here. But..

Cast Scorching Ray with action, since this is a non-cantrip spell with a cast time of 1 action you are not allowed to use your bonus action during this round to cast another spell, I quote from "Casting A Spell>Casting Time>Bonus Action"; "You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action." Which means you can't cast a spell that is not a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action during the same turn that you want to use your bonus action to quicken a spell.

The problem is that if you cast a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action- let's say Fire Bolt- first, then you can cast a Quickened Scorching Ray afterwards without any problems. So I believe RAI it means you can't cast two non-cantrip spells in the same round(one spell cast as an action, one as a bonus action), but RAW you need to spend your Action on a cantrip, and Bonus Action on a non-cantrip or cantrip spell or you're not allowed to.

Judging from the investment required by Quickened Spell I'd say the intent is indeed to have one spell + an additional cantrip cast in the same round, not two spells of any kind by any tortured reading of the rules.

Regarding Twinned Spell; It requires a greater investment in resources (More Sorcery points for higher level spells), and doesn't allow you to focus your resources on a single target.

Edit: Basically everything Mr.M(arvelous) said, with me adding that it's RAI for Cantrip + spell/cantrip in any order of action/bonus action should be legal unless your DM is silly.

[Rummy]

I would think Scorching Ray should be able to be Twinned.

First off, I come from a background of Magic: the Gathering. When I see an effect that copies a spell, I assume that it copies all modes. In this case, the mode is to do all the damage to a single target.

Secondly, if balance is a concern, Twinned Spell relies on spells being balanced at a non-Twinned level. If you don't want Scorching Ray twinned because it deals too much damage, maybe you should think about banning Scorching Ray when used as a single target spell.

The PHB is also very mindful of interactions. If it interfered with the usual limits to spells you can cast on your turn, it would say something.

I dunno. The spell does target three creatures, it's just that you can choose them to be the same creature. This is one I am curious to see how it is handled in organized play. Scorching Ray is one of the iconic sorcerer spells... How it interacts with sorcerer meta magic should not be ambiguous. These rules are suffering from not being part of the greater play test. I'm disappointed in the alpha play testers for not ironing out these obvious cases. It's not like we're talking about Cone of Colding warhorses here.

[Simian]

That would be a valid reading of quicken as well, if that's what you think they intended.
My point is that the RAW isn't God in this edition as it was in others.
The RAI are important for these questions.
As DM, it is your responsibility to determine what you feel the RAI was and rule accordingly.

Strictly speaking, from my interpretation, you are far better off Quickening any damage dealing spell than you are Twinning it.
Twin is intended to be used for concentration spells.
Incidentally, a simple houserule that each use of Quicken raises the cost by 1 sorcery point will also probably be used at my table.

Shadow,
I think the question you should ask yourself is, are you truly thinking of RAI in terms of just 5th ed or are you factoring in your other experiences with other games to determine what you feel should be the RAI when in reality it doesn't make sense in terms of 5th ed.

The best way to ask yourself this is if you just change the name away from Quicken Spell to another name that doesn't possess any additional meaning to you. If it had been called "spell on the run" for example, would you feel so strongly that it should allow you to change the general ruling?

[Fwiffo86]

Quickened Spell
When you cast a spell that has a casting time of 1 action, you can spend 2 sorcery points to change the casting time to 1 bonus action for this casting.

Twinned Spell
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 (1 sorcery point if the spell is a cantrip).
These are specific rules.



Please see bolded sections for significance.

My interpretation:

Quicken: It changes the casting time of the spell, it does NOT generate a new spell. Thus you are still limited to only being able to cast a cantrip in a round where you quicken a spell. Additionally, you are free to do anything else that an action can be spent on.

Twin: Spells with optional multiple targets are disqualified from being used with Twin. Magic missile, scorching ray,etc have multiple targets as an option to targeting. Which disqualifies them due to the requirement of only one target.

[DrLemniscate]

I dunno. The spell does target three creatures, it's just that you can choose them to be the same creature. This is one I am curious to see how it is handled in organized play. Scorching Ray is one of the iconic sorcerer spells... How it interacts with sorcerer meta magic should not be ambiguous. These rules are suffering from not being part of the greater play test. I'm disappointed in the alpha play testers for not ironing out these obvious cases. It's not like we're talking about Cone of Colding warhorses here.

Aha. That would be the question then. Does it have one target, or three targets that happen to be the same thing? I can see how having to make a roll for each beam would mean it still has multiple targets.

edit: I guess a good question for building RAI is does something like Scorching Ray or Eldritch Blast become OP if you allow it to be Twinned? Ideally, spells should be somewhat balanced by themselves, such that Twinning them doesn't make too much of a difference (some utility spells definitely become better). How does Scorching Ray compare to other damaging spells of the same level? I would think it would lose some damage itemization from being able to target multiple creatures, but I don't have my PHB handy, and it does do a lot of damage when concentrated.

[Fwiffo86]

Aha. That would be the question then. Does it have one target, or three targets that happen to be the same thing? I can see how having to make a roll for each beam would mean it still has multiple targets.

edit: I guess a good question for building RAI is does something like Scorching Ray or Eldritch Blast become OP if you allow it to be Twinned? Ideally, spells should be somewhat balanced by themselves, such that Twinning them doesn't make too much of a difference (some utility spells definitely become better). How does Scorching Ray compare to other damaging spells of the same level? I would think it would lose some damage itemization from being able to target multiple creatures, but I don't have my PHB handy, and it does do a lot of damage when concentrated.

How is hitting an additional target as an option in any way vague? The requirement specifically calls out "Only targets one". If the spell is capable of firing at multiple targets with a single casting, such as scorching rays 3 beams, it is not by definition, targeting one target.
Even if you sent all the beams at the same target, they are all target choices (multiple). You are just electing to hit Borkus with all of them.

[squashmaster]

The way that I interpret RAI:
Quicken Spell:
The point of the feature is that it changes the second spell to a bonus action so that your turn follows normal action economy. This specific rule trumps the general rule requiring the second spell be a cantrip.
You can Quicken one in order to cast two Scorching Rays, for example.

No.

Twinned spell is a little more vague only because of optional multitarget spells, but I'd say if you're casting the spell at a single target, it can be twinned. OP, maybe, but you're blowing metamagic points, so...

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Hmm, I'm comparing Twinned Scorching Ray to Fireball and I don't really see the balance problem.

Fluff-wise, I think of scorching ray as a beam that lasts for several seconds. The 'multiple targets' aspect consists of sweeping the beam across several targets. The twinned-spell aspect would be say shooting a beam from each hand.

The 'single target only' aspect is just to restrict truly ludicrous area damage and prevent a sorcerer from clearing an encounter in one round, so mechanics wise its okay if such a spell is twinned.

I do think sorcerers get too many sorcery points. *shrug*


The point of the feature is that it changes the second spell to a bonus action so that your turn follows normal action economy. This specific rule trumps the general rule requiring the second spell be a cantrip.
You can Quicken one in order to cast two Scorching Rays, for example.

The rules for quicken do not contradict (and thus override) the rules for bonus action castings. Quicken doesn't allow you to cast a spell as a bonus action, it specifically shortens the casting time to a bonus action.

[Dralnu]

Pet peeve of mine is when people say: "RAW is 100% clear on XYZ." If that were the case, then people wouldn't be endlessly debating it.

Quicken seems odd. RAW it seems that you can only do cantrip + quickened spell in a turn. That's pretty crappy. I don't know if that's an oversight or what, but I wouldn't restrict the sorcerer to a cantrip. If you want to deplete you spell slots twice as fast for a nova, go for it. It's still worse than Twin, the potential versatility you get from Quicken doesn't outweigh having to expend double the spell slots in my eyes.

Twin is far easier for me to reach a verdict.

"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 (1 sorcery point if the spell is a cantrip)."

Are you casting a spell that targets only one creature? Does it not have a range of self? Then you can twin it. It doesn't ask if the spell can potentially target more than one creature.

Scorching Ray:
"You create three rays of fire and hurl them at targets within range. You can hurl them at one target or several."

Can you twin Scorching Ray if it has several targets? No. Can you twin Scorching Ray if it's targeting only one creature? Yes.


Twinned spell is a little more vague only because of optional multitarget spells, but I'd say if you're casting the spell at a single target, it can be twinned. OP, maybe, but you're blowing metamagic points, so...

I ran some math on this. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18052968&postcount=58)

It's really not OP. A barbarian with equal stats is still going to outdamage a sorcerer doing twinned scorching ray, and he can dish out the damage for a far longer period of time. I stopped doing higher level math because once you get disintegrate (or even earlier) twinned scorching ray isn't the best source of damage anymore anyway.

[Dark Tira]

Are you casting a spell that targets only one creature? Does it not have a range of self? Then you can twin it. It doesn't ask if the spell can potentially target more than one creature.

Scorching Ray:
"You create three rays of fire and hurl them at targets within range. You can hurl them at one target or several."

Can you twin Scorching Ray if it has several targets? No. Can you twin Scorching Ray if it's targeting only one creature? Yes.


This is what I go with since it seems the simplest and closest to RAW. Going with restricting spells based on targeting potentiality gets pretty messy and silly. Firebolt for example wouldn't be able to be twinned since you can choose to use it on objects.

[DeAnno]

Scorching Rays can be hurled at "one target or several". Twinned spell works on "a spell that only targets one creature". It is clear that when you hurl rays at one target, the spell only targets one creature, and so Twin can be used. RAW becomes murky in that it is unclear if the extra creature simply becomes an extra allowed target for rays you already have, or if it spawns an entire extra instance of Scorching Ray. If it does spawn the extra instance, that calls into question using Twin to "double" your concentration, since two full instances of a spell should require two concentrations, not one.

For quicken, I think RAW and RAI are clear as day; you can't cast another spell on the same turn you cast any spell as a bonus action, unless that spell is a cantrip. It's an open and shut case. You can use a spell already running, activate a wand, or in fact do anything you want with your action with the exception of casting a leveled spell.

[Ferrin33]

Scorching Rays can be hurled at "one target or several". Twinned spell works on "a spell that only targets one creature". It is clear that when you hurl rays at one target, the spell only targets one creature, and so Twin can be used. RAW becomes murky in that it is unclear if the extra creature simply becomes an extra allowed target for rays you already have, or if it spawns an entire extra instance of Scorching Ray. If it does spawn the extra instance, that calls into question using Twin to "double" your concentration, since two full instances of a spell should require two concentrations, not one.

For quicken, I think RAW and RAI are clear as day; you can't cast another spell on the same turn you cast any spell as a bonus action, unless that spell is a cantrip. It's an open and shut case. You can use a spell already running, activate a wand, or in fact do anything you want with your action with the exception of casting a leveled spell.

Regarding Twinned Spell;

I think it's fair to say that all of the spell's effects are copied to the second target which in Scorching Ray's case means all the rays. It's still only one spell being cast though, so for concentration spells it means you can have two targets because it's not two spells, it's enhancing the spell being cast.

[Rummy]

Pet peeve of mine is when people say: "RAW is 100% clear on XYZ." If that were the case, then people wouldn't be endlessly debating it.

Quicken seems odd. RAW it seems that you can only do cantrip + quickened spell in a turn. That's pretty crappy. I don't know if that's an oversight or what, but I wouldn't restrict the sorcerer to a cantrip. If you want to deplete you spell slots twice as fast for a nova, go for it. It's still worse than Twin, the potential versatility you get from Quicken doesn't outweigh having to expend double the spell slots in my eyes.

Twin is far easier for me to reach a verdict.

"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 (1 sorcery point if the spell is a cantrip)."

Are you casting a spell that targets only one creature? Does it not have a range of self? Then you can twin it. It doesn't ask if the spell can potentially target more than one creature.

Scorching Ray:
"You create three rays of fire and hurl them at targets within range. You can hurl them at one target or several."

Can you twin Scorching Ray if it has several targets? No. Can you twin Scorching Ray if it's targeting only one creature? Yes.



I ran some math on this. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18052968&postcount=58)

It's really not OP. A barbarian with equal stats is still going to outdamage a sorcerer doing twinned scorching ray, and he can dish out the damage for a far longer period of time. I stopped doing higher level math because once you get disintegrate (or even earlier) twinned scorching ray isn't the best source of damage anymore anyway.

Twinning Scorching Ray becomes terrifying when you add Cha to each ray with Elemental Affinity at level six. Cast using 3rd level slot, SR does (2d6 + 4)*4 or avg of 44. Twin it and that goes to two mooks. Sorcerer can do this two rounds without cannibalizing lower level spell slots. That is really OP for sixth level.

[Hytheter]

Quicken seems odd. RAW it seems that you can only do cantrip + quickened spell in a turn. That's pretty crappy.

For two Sorcery points? I don't think that's crappy at all. Especially since some Cantrips are actually pretty decent, and it also let's you perform actions that aren't cantrips.

Maybe if Quicken had a "1 point for each spell level" cost it would be fair to let you use a higher level spell twice... you which is exactly what Twinned Spell is for. If you let Quicken as it stands override the "Cantrip only" rule then it basically obseletes Twin Spell, achieving the same effect for much cheaper.

edit: oh and unlike Twin, Quicken can also let you hit the same target twice, and let's you use two different spells.

So if we go by your ruling, Twin is only useful in situations when:
a) you really need that bonus action for something else
b) the spell you're multipling is a cantrip or level 1 spell
c) you've already used quicken this turn, and two scorching rays just isn't enough for you

All other times, Quicken will be strictly better if I'm not mistaken, and the two together would be devastating.

edit again: oh I guess Quicken also uses more spell slots than twin used in that way. So it's not strictly better, but it's definitely extremely good.

[Malifice]

If you cast a spell as a bonus action, you cant cast another spell in the same round (aside from a cantrip). Thats RAW. No quickening a scorching ray and casting one in the same round.

Twin spell wont work with rays. The spell states 'you create three rays and hurl them at targets within tange'. Yeah you can target the same creature, but thats a choice the caster makes and not a 'spell that only targets one creature'. Aiming all the rays at one creature does not make the spell one that ONLY targets one creature. The text of the twin spell ability (allowing you to target a second creature in range) doesnt conform to the text of Scorching ray. You cant make a scorching ray 'only target one creature' by aiming them all at one enemy. It doesnt work like that.

I'm unsure as to what the issue is here?

And for those that are claiming its 'not broken' to allow 2 scorching rays per turn, assuming a 9th level sorcerer with a charisma of 20 who has 2 5th level spell slots (an extra one via converting 7 of 9 available SP to Slots, leaving 2 for the Quicken, converting a 2nd and a third for an extra 5 to Twin one of the rays.). Expending those slots on a quickened and a twinned scorching ray (and adding in the Elemental affinity class feature bonus damage) adds up to:

[(15) x (2d6)] + 75 damage. Around 180 points of damage. As a 9th level caster.

If that Sorcerer was human with caster feat or was a Warlock 1 as well and had Hex running you can add 15d6 (around 50 on average) damage to the above.

Its not only against RAW and RAI, but clearly OP.

[Malifice]

http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/

The above link shows that Twin doesnt (or wasnt) supposed to work with chromatic orb.

So that rules out Scorching ray also.

[Dark Tira]

http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/

The above link shows that Twin doesnt (or wasnt) supposed to work with chromatic orb.

So that rules out Scorching ray also.

Did you actually read the question? He was asked if a twinned chromatic orb could target the same creature twice. I'm pretty sure no one has suggested anything similar for scorching ray here.

[Giant2005]

You cant make a scorching ray 'only target one creature' by aiming them all at one enemy.
So if he isn't targeting only one creature by aiming them all at one enemy, how many creatures is he targeting while aiming at only one enemy?

[Malifice]

So if he isn't targeting only one creature by aiming them all at one enemy, how many creatures is he targeting while aiming at only one enemy?

That doesnt alter the fact that the spell itself doesnt only have one target.

It creates 3 rays that you can aim at three or less creatures.

Any more than a summoning spell only targets one creature. It creates a monster that itself can target creatures.

[Giant2005]

That doesnt alter the fact that the spell itself doesnt only have one target.

It creates 3 rays that you can aim at three or less creatures.

Any more than a summoning spell only targets one creature. It creates a monster that itself can target creatures.

But none of the above are limitations in the book. The requirement is that you only target one creature and regardless of how many beams there are, if you are only aiming at one then the spell is only targeting one.

[Ferrin33]

That doesnt alter the fact that the spell itself doesnt only have one target.

It creates 3 rays that you can aim at three or less creatures.

Any more than a summoning spell only targets one creature. It creates a monster that itself can target creatures.

Twinned Spell says: "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn't have a range of self-"

It only cares if the spell at the time of casting has one target. Only what it is currently targetting, not "that can target only one creature". It cares about the magic about to fly from your hands, not what that magic could have done some other time with some other casting of that spell.

[Malifice]

But none of the above are limitations in the book. The requirement is that you only target one creature and regardless of how many beams there are, if you are only aiming at one then the spell is only targeting one.

The spell doesnt target anything. It creates three rays of fire. The sorcerer makes the choice to target a single creature or multiple creatures.

Just like conjure elemental doesnt target anything.

[Malifice]

Twinned Spell says: "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn't have a range of self-"

Charm person targets one creature.

Scorching ray creates three rays of fire and the caster then flings them at targets.

Arguing otherwise allows a Fireball to be twinned, as long as it only has one target in its AoE.

[Ferrin33]

Charm person targets one creature.

Scorching ray creates three rays of fire and the caster then flings them at targets.

Arguing otherwise allows a Fireball to be twinned, as long as it only has one target in its AoE.

Fireball does not mention targets anywhere in its statblock so it does not target creatures, Scorching Ray explicitly mentions "You can hurl them at one target or several."

[Malifice]

Fireball does not mention targets anywhere in its statblock so it does not target creatures, Scorching Ray explicitly mentions "You can hurl them at one target or several."

I can hurl a fireball at one target too can I not?

Read 'targets' page 204. Spellcasting, PHB.

[Ferrin33]

I can hurl a fireball at one target too can I not?

Read 'targets' page 204. Spellcasting, PHB.

I just told you, with fireball you have no target other than the point of origin, where the word target doesn't even appear in its statblock. Twinned Spell specifically mentions you need to target a creature, a point of origin does not count as a creature even though the point of origin is in the location of said creature.

If there would be a spell that says "Deal Xd6 damage to each creature in a 10 feet sphere centered on a target creature within range." Twinned Spell would work, but there is not.

[Malifice]

I just told you, with fireball you have no target other than the point of origin,

According to the section on page 204 of the PHB a 'target' can be a creature, object or point of origin.

Are you saying I cant target an object with a twinned spell?

[Ferrin33]

According to the section on page 204 of the PHB a 'target' can be a creature, object or point of origin.

Are you saying I cant target an object with a twinned spell?

I'm not, Twinned Spell is. Twinned Spell specifically mentions creatures. Not objects or points of origin.

[Malifice]

I'm not, Twinned Spell is. Twinned Spell specifically mentions creatures. Not objects or points of origin.

But Scorching ray doesnt target a single creature. It creates a ray which you then aim and fire at one or more creatures (or objects).

Certainly cant be twinned in my games. Unless its an unambiguous save or (take effect x) single target spell, then it cant be twinned.

If your GM allows it, more power to you.

[Ferrin33]

But Scorching ray doesnt target a single creature. It creates a ray which you then aim and fire at one or more creatures (or objects).

Certainly cant be twinned in my games. Unless its an unambiguous save or (take effect x) single target spell, then it cant be twinned.

If your GM allows it, more power to you.

Twinned Spell: "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn't have a range of self-"

Scorching Ray: "You can hurl them at one target or several."

Why would you, when cast at only one target, disallow a direct reading of the rules to disallow using a situational use of Scorching Ray + Twinned Spell?

You can use Twinned Spell if Scorching Ray is used on a single target, but not with multiple targets, as the rules say. Just because Scorching Ray can be cast at multiple targets only means you won't be able to use twinned spell on it if used that way.

[Fwiffo86]

Twinned Spell: "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn't have a range of self-"


The appropriate has been bolded. If a spell has the option of targeting additional targets, it is not "ONLY" targeting a single target. You have a choice. Twin spell is for spells that do not have optional targeting arrays. You cannot twin Magic Missile either, as you have the option of targeting up to one target per missile, just as scorching ray.

The mitigating factor is the default condition of the spell, not what you do with it when you cast it. In the case of scorching ray, the default condition is three rays that are individually targeted against something. The target must be chosen for each ray individually. Three decisions. Three rays. Not three shots at ONLY a single target.

The rays all have their own target choice. Three target possibilities. It doesn't matter if the caster chooses the same target for all three rays. The fact that there are 3 target choices invalidates the ONLY ONE target wording.

[Rummy]

No comments from the pro Twinning side on the fact that it is clearly OP to Twin Scorching Ray with Elemental Affinity?

[Giant2005]

No comments from the pro Twinning side on the fact that it is clearly OP to Twin Scorching Ray with Elemental Affinity?

Disintegrate does 10D6+40 with a level 6 spell slot for an average of 75 damage.
Scorching Ray with Elemental Affinity does 12D6+30 with a level 6 spell slot for an average of 72 damage.
That twinned Scorching ray does less damage than a twinned Disintegrate and to do so, it requires a class ability and probably a feat to avoid damage resistance. When something requires the assistance of a feat and class ability and still does less damage than a generic, unrestricted ability, you are going to have a pretty hard case trying to convince someone that it is OP.

[Ferrin33]

The appropriate has been bolded. If a spell has the option of targeting additional targets, it is not "ONLY" targeting a single target. You have a choice. Twin spell is for spells that do not have optional targeting arrays. You cannot twin Magic Missile either, as you have the option of targeting up to one target per missile, just as scorching ray.

The mitigating factor is the default condition of the spell, not what you do with it when you cast it. In the case of scorching ray, the default condition is three rays that are individually targeted against something. The target must be chosen for each ray individually. Three decisions. Three rays. Not three shots at ONLY a single target.

The rays all have their own target choice. Three target possibilities. It doesn't matter if the caster chooses the same target for all three rays. The fact that there are 3 target choices invalidates the ONLY ONE target wording.

"-that targets only one" Room for plural. Magic Missile would work for the same reason Scorching Ray works. You have to assume that Twinned Spell checks what it can do instead of what the spell being cast is doing. Twinned Spell is to hit two target creatures with the full force of a single spell at the cost of 1 sorcery point per spell level, no more and no less.


No comments from the pro Twinning side on the fact that it is clearly OP to Twin Scorching Ray with Elemental Affinity?

That a problem with the synergy of Scorching Ray and Elemental Affinity rather than Scorching Ray and Twinning.

Edit: And as has been pointed out above it's not even OP.

[Fwiffo86]

"-that targets only one" Room for plural.

This is a function of proper grammar, not indicative of a plural noun. Your logic is flawed here. But I see what you are trying to say.



You have to assume that Twinned Spell checks what it can do instead of what the spell being cast is doing. Twinned Spell is to hit two target creatures with the full force of a single spell at the cost of 1 sorcery point per spell level, no more and no less.


I disagree. You have to approach it from the only position where the spell is the same to everyone every time. Which in this case is when the spell is cast and before targets are selected. Not after the fact. When the target(s) are selected is a player choice, not the default condition of the spell. This does not change the fact that each ray is targeted individually, not all at once. You must select a target for each ray. If you choose to target one target, the spell has already been cast and is past the decision point of the Twin metamagic.

[Hytheter]

Disintegrate does 10D6+40 with a level 6 spell slot for an average of 75 damage.
Scorching Ray with Elemental Affinity does 12D6+30 with a level 6 spell slot for an average of 72 damage.

Scorching Ray in a 6th level spell slot has 7 rays; that's 14d6+35 for an average of 84

carry on

[Giant2005]

Scorching Ray in a 6th level spell slot has 7 rays; that's 14d6+35 for an average of 84

carry on

You are right, there is one more beam I hadn't accounted for. Still... You are talking about an average of an extra 9 damage at the expense of a feat and a class ability. If someone specializes in a spell to that extent, they should be doing more damage than a generic, unmodified spell - in my opinion the difference should be more significant than it is.

[Dark Tira]

This is a function of proper grammar, not indicative of a plural noun. Your logic is flawed here. But I see what you are trying to say.



I disagree. You have to approach it from the only position where the spell is the same to everyone every time. Which in this case is when the spell is cast and before targets are selected. Not after the fact. When the target(s) are selected is a player choice, not the default condition of the spell. This does not change the fact that each ray is targeted individually, not all at once. You must select a target for each ray. If you choose to target one target, the spell has already been cast and is past the decision point of the Twin metamagic.

None of this is supported by the rules. Spells aren't cast until all the decisions concerning it are made and there is no specific timing for any of those decisions. While casting the spell you decide the targets, if it targeting multiple creatures you can't apply twin, if targeting a single creature you can. Spells do not have default conditions, they qualify for twinning on their own merits on each casting.

[Fwiffo86]

None of this is supported by the rules. Spells aren't cast until all the decisions concerning it are made and there is no specific timing for any of those decisions. While casting the spell you decide the targets, if it targeting multiple creatures you can't apply twin, if targeting a single creature you can. Spells do not have default conditions, they qualify for twinning on their own merits on each casting.

Even if this is true, the fact that three target choices are made does not change. Three is not "only one". Just because the same target is selected three times does not make it a single target. You have three instances of Borkus being targeted, not one instance of target selection.

[Rummy]

Disintegrate does 10D6+40 with a level 6 spell slot for an average of 75 damage.
Scorching Ray with Elemental Affinity does 12D6+30 with a level 6 spell slot for an average of 72 damage.
That twinned Scorching ray does less damage than a twinned Disintegrate and to do so, it requires a class ability and probably a feat to avoid damage resistance. When something requires the assistance of a feat and class ability and still does less damage than a generic, unrestricted ability, you are going to have a pretty hard case trying to convince someone that it is OP.

Twinned Disintegrate is the main reason to single class Sorcerer straight to 11th level. It is incredible. It is also irrelevant to the OP at levels 6-9 conversation. Also, Scorching Ray does more damage than 72 because of crits. Also, 2nd level scaling spells are supposed to do much less damage than 6 level spells. Finally, 11th level is a "bang" level, like fifth. Which is why the XP requirements are do high for 11th level. Disintegrate is the "bang" blaster spell.

[Ferrin33]

You are right, there is one more beam I hadn't accounted for. Still... You are talking about an average of an extra 9 damage at the expense of a feat and a class ability. If someone specializes in a spell to that extent, they should be doing more damage than a generic, unmodified spell - in my opinion the difference should be more significant than it is.

I'd say the difference is fair considering you can use Scorching Ray at a lower level as well.


Even if this is true, the fact that three target choices are made does not change. Three is not "only one". Just because the same target is selected three times does not make it a single target. You have three instances of Borkus being targeted, not one instance of target selection.

You're right that the same spell targets one creature with all three rays, the problem is that you read "Only one target", while it says "Only one target creature". This is a important, as the spell as a whole only has one target creature when cast like this.



I disagree. You have to approach it from the only position where the spell is the same to everyone every time. Which in this case is when the spell is cast and before targets are selected. Not after the fact. When the target(s) are selected is a player choice, not the default condition of the spell. This does not change the fact that each ray is targeted individually, not all at once. You must select a target for each ray. If you choose to target one target, the spell has already been cast and is past the decision point of the Twin metamagic.

In that case you can not use Disintegrate with Twinned Spell using your logic.

Disintegrate: "The target can be a creature, an object, or a creation of magical force-"

[Fwiffo86]

You're right that the same spell targets one creature with all three rays, the problem is that you read "Only one target", while it says "Only one target creature". This is a important, as the spell as a whole only has one target creature when cast like this.

I can agree with your interpretation, but I stand by the fact that because it is at least three target selections (creature or otherwise), it by definition is not a Twin spell candidate no matter how you cast it. The wording "only one creature" eliminates the possibility of a second target entirely. If the spell has the possibility of selecting an additional creature target, it is not an "only" spell, and thus, not a candidate for Twin.

[Ferrin33]

I can agree with your interpretation, but I stand by the fact that because it is at least three target selections (creature or otherwise), it by definition is not a Twin spell candidate no matter how you cast it. The wording "only one creature" eliminates the possibility of a second target entirely. If the spell has the possibility of selecting an additional creature target, it is not an "only" spell, and thus, not a candidate for Twin.

Edited my post, could you reply to the bottom part as well please?

Again, the spell has the option of targetting more than one creature. At the point of casting the spell it's made clear that it does not in fact target more than one creature, which then allows you to use Twinned Spell: "When you cast-".

[Fwiffo86]

Edited my post, could you reply to the bottom part as well please?

Again, the spell has the option of targetting more than one creature. At the point of casting the spell it's made clear that it does not in fact target more than one creature, which then allows you to use Twinned Spell: "When you cast-".

Three choices of one creature is not one choice of one creature. That is basically my point. You have an option to choose additional targets. That alone disqualifies the spell from twin, no matter if you select the same target three times.

only one creature = Player not given a choice about target creature(s)

The word only precludes additional options. If you have additional options, it does not meet the only one creature criteria. It doesn't matter what you choose to do with the spell. It is a yes or no thing.

You have no option for additional targets = twin.
You have an option for additional targets = no twin.

I cannot put it any simpler than that.

[Ferrin33]

Three choices of one creature is not one choice of one creature. That is basically my point. You have an option to choose additional targets. That alone disqualifies the spell from twin, no matter if you select the same target three times.

only one creature

The word only precludes additional options. If you have additional options, it does not meet the only one creature criteria. It doesn't matter what you choose to do with the spell. It is a yes or no thing.

You have no option for additional targets = twin.
You have an option for additional targets = no twin.

I cannot put it any simpler than that.

"When you cast a spell that targets only one creature." Scorching Ray explicitly calls out in its text; "You can hurl them at one target or several." Now unless you also want to rule out Disintegrate because of possible illegal targets, Scorching Ray does work.

This is the most clear example I can find why it wouldn't make sense to rule it around possible options of the spell when the spell when cast does fulfill all the criteria. You need to houserule it doesn't, because by RAW it does.

[Fwiffo86]

"When you cast a spell that targets only one creature." Scorching Ray explicitly calls out in its text; "You can hurl them at one target or several." Now unless you also want to rule out Disintegrate because of possible illegal targets, Scorching Ray does work.

I have bolded the section in the wording that disqualifies Twin. Additionally, I would rule out disintegrate for the reason that it allows the targeting of objects instead of creatures as per your suggested interpretation.

[Giant2005]

Three choices of one creature is not one choice of one creature. That is basically my point. You have an option to choose additional targets. That alone disqualifies the spell from twin, no matter if you select the same target three times.

only one creature = Player not given a choice about target creature(s)

The word only precludes additional options. If you have additional options, it does not meet the only one creature criteria. It doesn't matter what you choose to do with the spell. It is a yes or no thing.

You have no option for additional targets = twin.
You have an option for additional targets = no twin.

I cannot put it any simpler than that.

That would make sense if that was actually how the English language worked...
I am currently using only one computer - that doesn't mean I don't have access to other computers I could be using and I might very well own more than one computer myself. You can't stretch the word only to infinity like you seem to want to.

[Fwiffo86]

That would make sense if that was actually how the English language worked...
I am currently using only one computer - that doesn't mean I don't have access to other computers I could be using and I might very well own more than one computer myself. You can't stretch the word only to infinity like you seem to want to.

I am not stretching it. I am using it as the qualifier for an ability.

[Giant2005]

I am not stretching it. I am using it as the qualifier for an ability.

Okay so explain it to me in simple terms.
If I am casting a spell in a way that targets only one creature, how exactly am I not casting a spell that targets only one creature?

[Dralnu]

Twinning Scorching Ray becomes terrifying when you add Cha to each ray with Elemental Affinity at level six. Cast using 3rd level slot, SR does (2d6 + 4)*4 or avg of 44. Twin it and that goes to two mooks. Sorcerer can do this two rounds without cannibalizing lower level spell slots. That is really OP for sixth level.

It's 3 times per long rest, or 4 times if you convert all your 2nd level spells and 1/4 1st level spells.

You're also assuming that, on average, every single ray is going to hit. Now, I'm no math whiz, but something tells me that the average is absolutely not 4/4 against most things that you're going to spend you highest level spell slot on. There's no way for the sorcerer to guarantee advantage for himself.

Meanwhile, a barbarian with a greatsword and great weapon mastery?

Frenzy damage, -5 atk, +10 dmg: 3 attacks of 2d6+16, 69 average damage.

And you know the difference here? All swings are guaranteed combat advantage with reckless attack.

This is can be done every round except for the first, for the entire fight, for four fights per day. Compared to the Sorcerer's 3 times, 4 if he decides that he wants to cast a 1d10+4 Firebolt for the rest of the day.

Can a Sorcerer nova better than the competition? Yes, absolutely. But that's why it's called a nova. Damage over time, they're trumped by other classes handily. Not sure what's "OP" here.


For two Sorcery points? I don't think that's crappy at all. Especially since some Cantrips are actually pretty decent, and it also let's you perform actions that aren't cantrips.

Maybe if Quicken had a "1 point for each spell level" cost it would be fair to let you use a higher level spell twice... you which is exactly what Twinned Spell is for. If you let Quicken as it stands override the "Cantrip only" rule then it basically obseletes Twin Spell, achieving the same effect for much cheaper.

Oops, I assumed that Quicken had the same wording as Twin. That makes it fine, though I still prefer Twin.

Also, it's good to note that a few concentration spells, like Witch Bolt, work very well with Quicken. From what I understand, you can use Witch Bolt's ongoing attack option and still Quicken a spell on the same turn.


You have no option for additional targets = twin.
You have an option for additional targets = no twin.

I cannot put it any simpler than that.

So you can't twin Disintegrate? "The target can be a creature, an object, or a creation of magical force" No Firebolt either? "You hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object within range."

You have no option for non-creature targets = twin
You have an option for non-creature targets = no twin

Logic not silly?

[Fwiffo86]

Okay so explain it to me in simple terms.
If I am casting a spell in a way that targets only one creature, how exactly am I not casting a spell that targets only one creature?

Does that spell give you the option to target additional creatures?

Yes or no?

If yes, no twin

[Giant2005]

Does that spell give you the option to target additional creatures?

Yes or no?

If yes, no twin

Am I targeting only one creature?

Yes or no?

If no, no twin.

[Fwiffo86]

You have no option for non-creature targets = twin
You have an option for non-creature targets = no twin

Logic not silly?

I am using E's interpretation of "only one creature". If we continue to use his qualifications, disintegrate and any spell that allows you to target something other than a creature disqualifies Twin. I am simply taking his logic to its next step.

Which is why I initially focused on "only one target" to prevent just this sort of discussion. I don't think the fact that it is a creature should even be considered, but it is written that way.

[Fwiffo86]

Am I targeting only one creature?

Yes or no?

If no, no twin.

I can see your opinion certainly. But you seem to be missing what I am talking about.

The option to select additional targets is the deciding factor. Not the decision to select additional targets.

[squashmaster]

Just wanna throw in my 2 cent and say that I do think Twinning Scorching Ray or other multitarget spells does, indeed, let you then target up to 2 different enemies, or use both rays on one. That's just how it's RAW. RAI? That's another matter.

[Symphony]

I can see your opinion certainly. But you seem to be missing what I am talking about.

The option to select additional targets is the deciding factor. Not the decision to select additional targets.

"Targets only one creature" is, in fact, different than "can target only one creature" or "only targets one creature".

[Fwiffo86]

*shrugs*

Its going to be interpreted differently then. I do not have the desire to attempt to convince anyone here. You are going to run it one way, I am going to run it another. Besides, it's irrelevant, the Twin has to target something else anyway.

I worry though that your players may read that as this example:

3 rays at Borkus, then the twin will target his three minions, one ray at each.

Just putting that out there. Carry on.

[Ferrin33]

*shrugs*

Its going to be interpreted differently then. I do not have the desire to attempt to convince anyone here. You are going to run it one way, I am going to run it another. Besides, it's irrelevant, the Twin has to target something else anyway.

I worry though that your players may read that as this example:

3 rays at Borkus, then the twin will target his three minions, one ray at each.

Just putting that out there. Carry on.

"-to target a second creature in range with the same spell."

No, no you can't.

This is where the argument gets fuzzy though; all rays, just one additional ray? RAI I'd say all rays, but RAW it is sadly enough only one ray.

Actually no, it's basically copying the effects of the spell to the second target. "-with the same spell."

[Fwiffo86]

Actually no, it's basically copying the effects of the spell to the second target. "-with the same spell."

Then doesn't that set up an impossible situation? You have three rays targeted at gobbo 1. You copy three rays targeted at gobbo 1 to gobbo 2?

Logic of course states that gobbo 2 eats three rays. But that doesn't really answer the question. RAW means you have three more rays targeted at Gobbo 1 (because its a copy of the spell) which you aim at Gobbo 2, which hit Gobbo 1 anyway because its a copy of the same spell?

Or in simpler terms... A copy of a spell sounds like it uses the exact same spell again. That includes originally selected target doesn't it?

I think I'm just dropping Twin spell. I disliked it in 3, and I don't like it here either.

[Ferrin33]

Then doesn't that set up an impossible situation? You have three rays targeted at gobbo 1. You copy three rays targeted at gobbo 1 to gobbo 2?

Logic of course states that gobbo 2 eats three rays. But that doesn't really answer the question. RAW means you have three more rays targeted at Gobbo 1 (because its a copy of the spell) which you aim at Gobbo 2, which hit Gobbo 1 anyway because its a copy of the same spell?

Or in simpler terms... A copy of a spell sounds like it uses the exact same spell again. That includes originally selected target doesn't it?

I think I'm just dropping Twin spell. I disliked it in 3, and I don't like it here either.

No, it doesn't, it means the spell and its effects also target a second target within range. With "basically copying" I did not mean copying the entire spell, just the effects of the spell to a second target.

[Dralnu]

"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."

Same spell is there to indicate same modifiers, same casting type, all the same conditions. Also you aren't expending an additional spell slot to cast, because you're taking one spell and applying it to two targets instead of 1, not casting two distinct spells. "Twinning" a spell can also be called "Forking" a spell if that helps you visualize.

http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/cardart/2e/Fork.jpg

I cast Firebolt at gobbo 1. That is one mote of fire going to gobbo 1. I declare that I'm twinning this Firebolt, with gobbo 2 as my second target. That is 1 mote going to gobbo 1, and 1 mote going to gobbo 2.

I cast Chromatic Orb at gobbo 1. I choose Fire as the energy type. That is one orb of fire going to gobbo 1. I declare that I'm twinning this Chromatic Orb, with gobbo 2 as my second target. Gobbo 1 and Gobbo 2 are being targeting by the Chromatic Orb of the Fire energy type.

For whatever reason, my next spell has +2 DC to the spell saving throw. I cast Tasha's Hideous Laughter targeting gobbo 1. I declare that I'm twinning Tasha's Hideous Laughter, targeting gobbo 2. Gobbo 1 and Gobbo 2 are being targeted by Tasha's Hideous Laughter and the DC saving throw for both gobbos is at +2.

I cast Empowered Firebolt at gobbo 1. That is one empowered mote of fire going to gobbo 1. I declare that I'm twinning Empowered Firebolt, with gobbo 2 as my second target. That is 1 empowered mote going to gobbo 1, and 1 empowered mote going to gobbo 2.

I cast Scorching Ray targeting only gobbo 1. That is 3 rays going to gobbo 1. I declare that I'm twinning this Scorching Ray, with gobbo 2 as my second target. That is 3 rays going to gobbo 1, and 3 rays going to gobbo two.

[Ferrin33]

"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."

Same spell is there to indicate same modifiers, same casting type, all the same conditions. Also you aren't expending an additional spell slot to cast, because you're taking one spell and applying it to two targets instead of 1, not casting two distinct spells. "Twinning" a spell can also be called "Forking" a spell if that helps you visualize.

http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/cardart/2e/Fork.jpg

I cast Firebolt at gobbo 1. That is one mote of fire going to gobbo 1. I declare that I'm twinning this Firebolt, with gobbo 2 as my second target. That is 1 mote going to gobbo 1, and 1 mote going to gobbo 2.

I cast Chromatic Orb at gobbo 1. I choose Fire as the energy type. That is one orb of fire going to gobbo 1. I declare that I'm twinning this Chromatic Orb, with gobbo 2 as my second target. Gobbo 1 and Gobbo 2 are being targeting by the Chromatic Orb of the Fire energy type.

For whatever reason, my next spell has +2 DC to the spell saving throw. I cast Tasha's Hideous Laughter targeting gobbo 1. I declare that I'm twinning Tasha's Hideous Laughter, targeting gobbo 2. Gobbo 1 and Gobbo 2 are being targeted by Tasha's Hideous Laughter and the DC saving throw for both gobbos is at +2.

I cast Empowered Firebolt at gobbo 1. That is one empowered mote of fire going to gobbo 1. I declare that I'm twinning Empowered Firebolt, with gobbo 2 as my second target. That is 1 empowered mote going to gobbo 1, and 1 empowered mote going to gobbo 2.

I cast Scorching Ray targeting only gobbo 1. That is 3 rays going to gobbo 1. I declare that I'm twinning this Scorching Ray, with gobbo 2 as my second target. That is 3 rays going to gobbo 1, and 3 rays going to gobbo two.

Completely agree except the Empowered one. You don't get to use two metamagics on the same spell. Even if you could it would still only be one spell, so still; max Charisma modifier in damage dice rerolled.

[Symphony]

Completely agree except the Empowered one. You don't get to use two metamagics on the same spell. Even if you could, it would still only be one spell so still; max Charisma modifier in damage dice rerolled.

Empowered specifically allows you to apply it to a spell that has other metamagic applied.

[Ferrin33]

Empowered specifically allows you to apply it to a spell that has other metamagic applied.

Ah you're right, missed that. Well luckily I already answered "what if you could." ^^

[Dralnu]

I should clarify: I don't mean that you'd get to reroll your CHA mod for each side of the twin, or CHAx2. I meant that if you empower, say, a Twinned Chromatic Orb, any of the dice you rolled is applicable for a reroll, because the Chromatic Orb is one spell that is being twinned to hit two targets instead of one.

"When you roll damage for a spell, you can spend 1 sorcery point to reroll a number of the damage dice up to your Charisma modifier."

"When you cast a spell that targets only one creature... to target a second creature in range with the same spell."

So Twinned Empowered Chromatic Orb (fire) at Goblin 1 and Goblin 2. Charisma mod +4. 3d8 fire to Goblin 1, 3d8 to Goblin 2, up to 4 dice of the 6 total rolled can be rerolled.

[Theodoxus]

I don't understand Twinning Concentration spells. Can you elaborate on that? Since you can't concentrate on two spells - and twinning creates two separate spells, how can you maintain concentration on both?

It seems like the Quicken spell debate is over, but I just wanted to add that you can think of it this way: When you use Quicken, all it does is essentially go through the PHB and change every spell with a casting time of 1 Action to 1 Bonus Action. Then you follow the rules of casting with a Bonus Action.

As for twinning evocations, I can see it both ways - both semantic arguments work. However, I have no idea what the rules as intended were supposed to be. It doesn't seem to be particularly powerful to have it be used with single targeting multiple target spells... I think in this particular case, if RAI is never supplied, I'll just see how it works out in play. If my players even ever ask about it... and they probably won't.

[Sartharina]

I don't understand Twinning Concentration spells. Can you elaborate on that? Since you can't concentrate on two spells - and twinning creates two separate spells, how can you maintain concentration on both?It doesn't create two seperate spells - it creates one spell with two different targets.

I've missed this entire debate, but I see both working with Scorching Ray - Twinning is a costly way to turn Scorching Ray from a Single-target spike to a double-target spike (And you're paying for it in Sorcery Points, which can be directly converted to spell slots).

As far as double-casting with Quicken - Sure, it may only be 2 Sorcery points - but it ALSO cost the Spell Slot for whatever spell you're casting twice in a turn. So, it costs an extra first-level spell slot on top of the two spell slots you're using to cast twice in a turn. But if it only works with cantrips, that's okay too.

Frankly, given how few Spells a Sorcerer can know, I'd always rule in favor of the Sorcerer when it comes to "Can This Spell I Know have this Metamagic I know applied to it?" issues. Sorcerers don't know enough spells NOR have enough metamagic abilities for me to say "No" to those.

[ImperiousLeader]

Frankly, given how few Spells a Sorcerer can know, I'd always rule in favor of the Sorcerer when it comes to "Can This Spell I Know have this Metamagic I know applied to it?" issues. Sorcerers don't know enough spells NOR have enough metamagic abilities for me to say "No" to those.

This. I'd rather be more permissive in this case. If it gives them an edge with Scorching Ray, so be it. A sorcerer has roughly half the spells known as the wizard can prepare. Metamagic is supposed to be their equalizer, and it uses the same resource, Sorcery points, as their ability to create more spell slots, which competes with the Wizard's Arcane Recovery.

[Ferrin33]

This. I'd rather be more permissive in this case. If it gives them an edge with Scorching Ray, so be it. A sorcerer has roughly half the spells known as the wizard can prepare. Metamagic is supposed to be their equalizer, and it uses the same resource, Sorcery points, as their ability to create more spell slots, which competes with the Wizard's Arcane Recovery.

Luckily RAW is in the Sorcerer's favor!

[Theodoxus]

This. I'd rather be more permissive in this case. If it gives them an edge with Scorching Ray, so be it. A sorcerer has roughly half the spells known as the wizard can prepare. Metamagic is supposed to be their equalizer, and it uses the same resource, Sorcery points, as their ability to create more spell slots, which competes with the Wizard's Arcane Recovery.

Yeah, I still don't see the Twin Concentration spell being kosher, but this argument nukes my concerns. I agree that given how specialized the sorcerer will tend to be with so few spells known, that erring on the side of caution only diminishes the class without offering much protection.

I'll let my players ask on their own - I won't offer them the options openly - but I won't deny their creative use either.

[Ferrin33]

Yeah, I still don't see the Twin Concentration spell being kosher, but this argument nukes my concerns. I agree that given how specialized the sorcerer will tend to be with so few spells known, that erring on the side of caution only diminishes the class without offering much protection.

I'll let my players ask on their own - I won't offer them the options openly - but I won't deny their creative use either.

"-to target a second creature in range with the same spell." I believe this means that the same spell now has a second target, rather than a copy of the first spell both targeting individual creatures.

[Theodoxus]

"-to target a second creature in range with the same spell." I believe this means that the same spell now has a second target, rather than a copy of the first spell both targeting individual creatures.

I suppose it would follow the same logic as having a mass effect concentration spell, like Bless or Bane. Ok, I can get behind that.

[Malifice]

Twinned Spell: "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn't have a range of self-"

Scorching Ray: "You can hurl them at one target or several."

Because the spell doesnt target one creature.

It creates three (or more) rays of fire. Each of which can be hurled at an object or creature.


Why would you, when cast at only one target, disallow a direct reading of the rules to disallow using a situational use of Scorching Ray + Twinned Spell?

For reasons already explained. And I think its against the RAI. And its OP.


You can use Twinned Spell if Scorching Ray is used on a single target, but not with multiple targets, as the rules say. Just because Scorching Ray can be cast at multiple targets only means you won't be able to use twinned spell on it if used that way.

I can apply the same logic to foreball. Read the rules for 'targets' on page 204.

[Sartharina]

Because the spell doesnt target one creature.

It creates three (or more) rays of fire. Each of which can be hurled at an object or creature.Or fire all three rays at a single creature, and it only targets one creature (And, when cast as such, can be twinned).


For reasons already explained. And I think its against the RAI. And its OP.I don't think it's OP. Not compared to what any other class can do with their much larger spell selection. And even if it is "OP", the sorcerer is trading versatility for more Raw Power, which isn't game-breaking either. It's a good direct-damage blast against two targets.




I can apply the same logic to foreball. Read the rules for 'targets' on page 204.Fireball does not target a creature - it targets a point in space. Some AoEs target a creature, others target a point in space. Fireball is one of the ones that targets a point in space.

[Malifice]

Or fire all three rays at a single creature, and it only targets one creature (And, when cast as such, can be twinned).

We're going round in circles. Ive answered this question.


I don't think it's OP.

It is. Unless you view 250 DPR at 9th level not OP.


Fireball does not target a creature.

Neither does Scorching ray. Or Summon Elemental.

[Ferrin33]

We're going round in circles. Ive answered this question.

The spell has- at the time of casting- only one creature targeted with all of its effects. It explicitly says so in the Scorching Ray text which I quoted; Scorching Ray: "You can hurl them at one target or several." Please explain your exact thought sequence as to why you do not believe the spell only has one creature targeted.


It is. Unless you view 250 DPR at 9th level not OP.

How are you getting 250 damage per round?

One 5th level spell slot, three 4th level spell slots, 9 sorcery points.

12d6+30 * 2(Twinned) = 142 average in one round assuming everything hits, costing you your only 5th level spell slot and 5 sorcery points. If you burn all of your spell slots for sorcery points you can do this an additional three times per day, not in successive rounds as you need to spend all of your bonus actions converting to sorcery points and 5th level spell slots. If the sorcerer spends all of his resources on this to go nova, do you really think he shouldn't do that damage four times per day?

A barbarian does 4d6+10 all day long with advantage, and when raging(with frenzy) it's 6d6+24, all attacks with advantage four times per day for an entire combat.

The sorcerer is throwing 2d10+5 Fire Bolts around after dumping all of his Spell Slots and Sorcery points. Not to mention that he'd have lost the entirety if his class features and could not have used his spells on anything else.


Neither does Scorching ray. Or Summon Elemental.

Fireball: "-to a point you choose within range and then blossoms-" This is (quite obviously) referring to the point of origin targeting option of the Spellcasting rules.

Conjure Elemental: "Choose an area of air, earth, fire, or water that fills a 10-foot cube within range." This is not targeting anything, however...

Scorching Ray: "You create three rays of fire and hurl them at targets within range. You can hurl them at one target or several." It targets without a limitation on what can be targeted other than the number of effects of the spell, only a clarification that all effects of the spell can be directed at a single creature, as per the "one target" text in the Scorching Ray statblock.

[Fwiffo86]

Scorching Ray: "You create three rays of fire and hurl them at targets within range. You can hurl them at one target or several." It targets without a limitation on what can be targeted other than the number of effects of the spell, only a clarification that all effects of the spell can be directed at a single creature, as per the "one target" text in the Scorching Ray statblock.

Argument could be made that this doesn't target anything. The spell creates the rays. THEN the rays are fired at a target. The spell ends after the rays are created.

Specifically... this line:
You create three rays of fire and [hurl them] at targets within range.
Suggests that the act of hurling them is NOT part of the spell itself.

In either case, my belief is that because there are three rays, there are three instances of targeting (one for each ray), which is more than one instance of targeting (which twin calls for). Selecting the same target three times isn't the issue, its the number of selections, not the target.

I sort of agree with Sartharina, I see no real problem with allowing this, but it sets a precedent within the game that may open the doors to bigger issues.

[Ferrin33]

Argument could be made that this doesn't target anything. The spell creates the rays. THEN the rays are fired at a target. The spell ends after the rays are created.

Specifically... this line:
You create three rays of fire and [hurl them] at targets within range.
Suggests that the act of hurling them is NOT part of the spell itself.

Really? Really?!

[ImperiousLeader]

Because the spell doesnt target one creature.

It creates three (or more) rays of fire. Each of which can be hurled at an object or creature.

:smallconfused: And what do you do with the rays? You target something. Therefore the spell targets. This is a torturous twisting of text to assume otherwise.

[Fwiffo86]

Really? Really?!

You're willing to put a conditional modifier onto a class ability that doesn't exist in relation to this spell and you are taking issue with a possible interpretation of the wording?

I thought that was what we were discussing here, interpretation of the wording.

EDIT --- Additional thoughts

I in no way think this is remotely possible. But we are discussing interpretations here. I am only presenting one.

[Ferrin33]

You're willing to put a conditional modifier onto a class ability that doesn't exist in relation to this spell and you are taking issue with a possible interpretation of the wording?

I thought that was what we were discussing here, interpretation of the wording.

The literal wording and if there's doubt in the literal meaning then there is room for interpretation. What you did was just... ridiculous. It doesn't hold up in the entirety of the book, no references made to it or even implied.

[Fwiffo86]

The literal wording and if there's doubt in the literal meaning then there is room for interpretation. What you did was just... ridiculous. It doesn't hold up in the entirety of the book, no references made to it or even implied.

Wait... now I'm confused. When did we start using the literal meaning, because I presented the literal meaning (three target choices is more than only one target choice) and you shot me down?

[Ferrin33]

Wait... now I'm confused. When did we start using the literal meaning, because I presented the literal meaning (three target choices is more than only one target choice) and you shot me down?

The spell Scorching Ray, as per its own wording, can direct all of its rays towards one target.

Twinned Spell: "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature-"

It cares about the spell having one target at the time you cast it, which Scorching Ray qualifies for if it directs all of its rays towards one target.

[Fwiffo86]

The spell Scorching Ray, as per its own wording, can direct all of its rays towards one target.

Twinned Spell: "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature-"

It cares about the spell having one target at the time you cast it, which Scorching Ray qualifies for if it directs all of its rays towards one target.

And again I restate that it says ONLY ONE target, meaning that if you have the option to target other creatures, it is not a valid Twin spell.

Lets just agree to disagree then. We are only going to waste post space and other people's time.

[Ferrin33]

And again I restate that it says ONLY ONE target, meaning that if you have the option to target other creatures, it is not a valid Twin spell.

Lets just agree to disagree then. We are only going to waste post space and other people's time.

No, the spell only has one target, Twinned Spell cares about the spell being cast. Scorching Ray with all of its rays targeting one creature at the time you cast the spell... only targets one creature, making it fulfill all of Twinned Spell's criteria.

[Fwiffo86]

No, the spell only has one target, Twinned Spell cares about the spell being cast. Scorching Ray with all of its rays targeting one creature at the time you cast the spell... only targets one creature, making it fulfill all of Twinned Spell's criteria.

It has three instance of an identical target, not one target.

[Symphony]

And again I restate that it says ONLY ONE target, meaning that if you have the option to target other creatures, it is not a valid Twin spell.

Hold up. If we're getting this pedantic, let's make sure we actually are using the actual literal wording of Twinned Spell, which is: "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn't have a range of self..."

If a spell can target more than one creature but targets only one creature (even if it is doing to multiple times), that satisfies the literal reading of the ability.

[Dark Tira]

It has three instance of an identical target, not one target.

You're creating nuances not supported by the rules. Shooting three beams at one target is still one target.

[Fwiffo86]

You're creating nuances not supported by the rules. Shooting three beams at one target is still one target.

Its supported by the fact that they can be targeted at three different creatures. That is your rules support. If you couldn't do that, then I would agree with you.

[Ferrin33]

Its supported by the fact that they can be targeted at three different creatures. If you couldn't do that, then I would agree with you.

If you're going to argue that... really, I'll make a list of all legal targets for twinned spell without a shadow of a doubt. No spells with the possibility of targeting anything other than a single creature at any level the spell would be cast at. Give me a while, need to read through it all.

Twinned Spell cares only about what the spell is doing, not what it can do.

[Dark Tira]

Its supported by the fact that they can be targeted at three different creatures. That is your rules support. If you couldn't do that, then I would agree with you.

and I agree that if you were actually targeting three different creatures you could not twin it. You only apply metamagic to the spell you are actually casting, not a spell that might have been cast.

[Fwiffo86]

*sigh*

Ok... look. I'm not trying to put people out of sorts. I am presenting my point of view. All I am looking for here is acknowledgement that it is a possible interpretation. But no one is willing to do that. Which is fine. As I have said before...

You can run it how you want. It's your game after all.

And since I get to run my game how I want to, we really are arguing something that is functionally pointless.

[Ferrin33]

*sigh*

Ok... look. I'm not trying to put people out of sorts. I am presenting my point of view. All I am looking for here is acknowledgement that it is a possible interpretation. But no one is willing to do that. Which is fine. As I have said before...

You can run it how you want. It's your game after all.

And since I get to run my game how I want to, we really are arguing something that is functionally pointless.

But your interpretation does not make sense with the RAW, it's a reading of the rules that is not consistent and turns a blind eye to things blatantly pointed out(Scorching Ray as a spell having the possibility of having only one target, right in its text). Still working on the list by the way, which you might be able to get some use out of it you're going to houserule it like that.

[Fwiffo86]

But your interpretation does not make sense with the RAW, it's a reading of the rules that is not consistent and turns a blind eye to things blatantly pointed out(Scorching Ray as a spell having the possibility of having only one target, right in its text). Still working on the list by the way, which you might be able to get some use out of it you're going to houserule it like that.

Does scorching ray count as one hit despite the rays as Magic Missile does? If it does, then I will concede to your view. If not, then I still stick with 3 targets, 3 hits, not single target.

[Ferrin33]

Does scorching ray count as one hit despite the rays as Magic Missile does? If it does, then I will concede to your view. If not, then I still stick with 3 targets, 3 hits, not single target.

Magic Missile does not make attack rolls, hence why it is counted as one hit, other than that it has the same "you can direct them to hit one creature or several."

[Fwiffo86]

Magic Missile does not make attack rolls, hence why it is counted as one hit, other than that it has the same "you can direct them to hit one creature or several."

Agreed, but that didn't really answer my question. Do they count as one hit?

[Ferrin33]

Agreed, but that didn't really answer my question. Do they count as one hit?

Ah I'm sorry, I thought it was clear. Yes, Scorching Ray can hit a single target multiple times if multiple rays are directed towards it.

[Sartharina]

Its supported by the fact that they can be targeted at three different creatures. That is your rules support. If you couldn't do that, then I would agree with you.
Can be, but isn't. Metamagic doesn't care about potential, only results. Three hits on one target is still a single target. The spell cares about how many creatures you target, not how many times you target them.

[Malifice]

The spell has- at the time of casting- only one creature targeted with all of its effects. It explicitly says so in the Scorching Ray text which I quoted; Scorching Ray: "You can hurl them at one target or several." Please explain your exact thought sequence as to why you do not believe the spell only has one creature targeted.

I already have. The spell doesnt target anything. It creates three rays.

The text of the spell just tells you what you can do with those rays.

I see it as no different to Mordenkainens sword, which (IMO) also cant be twinned.


How are you getting 250 damage per round?

One 5th level spell slot, three 4th level spell slots, 9 sorcery points.

12d6+30 * 2(Twinned) = 142 average in one round assuming everything hits, costing you your only 5th level spell slot and 5 sorcery points.

A Sorcerer with access to the Hex spell (via a Feat assuming no Dip) is also adding a further 12d6 damage on top of that. And then add a (twinned) cantrip on top of that damage. Thats 250 damage.

Thats more than the average nova damage of a 20th level Fighter, or a Wizard 20 with Metor swarm. At 9th level.

Assuming 11th level (Warlock 2/ Sorcerer 9) with Hex and and youre spamming a (3d10+15+3d6) Agonising Eldrich blast on top of your Twinned Scorching ray. Which come to think of it, can probably be twinned using your logic as well.

So it becomes a 12 ray (36d6+60) + 6 blast (6d10+30+6d6) Nova strike. At 11th level. Or around 300 points of damage on average if they all hit.

The same time the Fighter just got his 3rd attack.

If you dont consider that OP for an 11th level character, then I cant help you.

[Malifice]

Can be, but isn't. Metamagic doesn't care about potential, only results.

I totally disagree.

From a narrativist and from a gamist perspective.

Either the spell itself can always be twinned. Or it never can be. Simply aiming the rays all at one target doesnt change my opinion.

If you want it to work differently then feel free.

[Malifice]

Scorching Ray: "You create three rays of fire

The spell is now cast.


and hurl them at targets within range. You can hurl them at one target or several."

This is just explaining what you can now do with the rays of fire that you have just magically created.

Thats how it works in my games. Up to you how you run it in yours.

[Fwiffo86]

The spell is now cast.



This is just explaining what you can now do with the rays of fire that you have just magically created.

Thats how it works in my games. Up to you how you run it in yours.

I agree with this interpretation.

[Symphony]

Does scorching ray count as one hit despite the rays as Magic Missile does? If it does, then I will concede to your view. If not, then I still stick with 3 targets, 3 hits, not single target.

Even if it's "three targets, three hits", if all three of those targets are the same creature, then it is targeting only one creature, which is what Twinned Spell requires. Twinned Spell says nothing about only one target.

[Sartharina]

125 damage to a single target, if all rays hit (Not Guaranteed)). And once a day - you still have 5-7 encounters left to go. It's an excellent Burst, but Bursts don't beat adventures.

A wizard can beat that total damage output by catching 9 guys with a Fireball.

[Fwiffo86]

Even if it's "three targets, three hits", if all three of those targets are the same creature, then it is targeting only one creature, which is what Twinned Spell requires. Twinned Spell says nothing about only one target.

For clarification: Edits to quoted line are mine.


Twinned Spell says nothing about only one target creature.

The issue isn't the target creature. The issue is the number of times it is targeted in my opinion.

EDIT - Further clarification

The spell always has at least three targets. The fact that they can be the same one isn't important. It doesn't change three targets.

[Symphony]

The issue isn't the target creature. The issue is the number of times it is targeted in my opinion.

Quoting myself:


Hold up. If we're getting this pedantic, let's make sure we actually are using the actual literal wording of Twinned Spell, which is: "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn't have a range of self..."

The actual text of the ability (copied straight from the PHB, page 102), only has a limit of "one creature". Even if you target the same creature multiple times, it does not change the fact that you are targeting only one creature.

The number of targets do not matter, only the number of creatures being targeted.

[Malifice]

125 damage to a single target, if all rays hit (Not Guaranteed)). And once a day - you still have 5-7 encounters left to go. It's an excellent Burst, but Bursts don't beat adventures.

A wizard can beat that total damage output by catching 9 guys with a Fireball.

Doing small amounts of Burst damage and killing mooks, is not the same thing as nova shotting the BBEG.

Its just enouraging the Sorc to Nova kill (and ruin) BBEG encounters. One auto win a day and suck (or rest) for the rest of the day.

I dont want my campaigns running that way, so I say 'No' via a narrow interpretation of the (already very useful) Twin Spell ability.

[Sartharina]

Doing small amounts of Burst damage and killing mooks, is not the same thing as nova shotting the BBEG.

Its just enouraging the Sorc to Nova kill (and ruin) BBEG encounters. One auto win a day and suck (or rest) for the rest of the day.

I dont want my campaigns running that way, so I say 'No' via a narrow interpretation of the (already very useful) Twin Spell ability.
Except Twinning a Scorching Ray doesn't change the single-target nova damage of the Sorcerer - if he's bursting down the guy with a Twinned Spell, he's bursting it down without the Twinned spell because Twinning doesn't change single-target DPR at all.

[Fwiffo86]

The number of targets do not matter, only the number of creatures being targeted.

Which is one creature per ray. Or Three.

[Malifice]

125 damage to a single target, if all rays hit (Not Guaranteed)). And once a day - you still have 5-7 encounters left to go. It's an excellent Burst, but Bursts don't beat adventures.

Assuming 11th level (Warlock 2/ Sorcerer 9) with Hex and and thats a (3d10+15+3d6) + (3d10+15+3d6) Twinned Agonising Eldrich blast on top of your Twinned Scorching ray.

So it becomes a 12 ray (36d6+60) + 6 blast (6d10+30+6d6) Nova strike. At 11th level. Or around 300 points of damage on average if they all hit.

Two seperate targets take (21d6+3d10+45) or around 150 damage a pop on average... each

Can you find me a similar ability or spell available to an 11th level character? Anything even remotely close?

[ImperiousLeader]

You need to recalculate those average damage rates to take all the attack rolls into account.

And I'd still point out that even without allowing Twin Spell ... you can still Nova a single target. Heck, the same build can Quicken Scorching Ray and throw Eldritch Blasts on top of it. That's a more efficient use of Sorcery Points anyway, Twining costs more than Quicken.

[Ferrin33]

Which is one creature per ray. Or Three.

As I said countless times before; "You can hurl them at one target or several." Scorching Ray explicitly mentions that you can, and that it does count as one target.

I made a list for your game, not all sorcerer spells, but all spells. Only one creature is ever possible to be targeted by any of these spells no matter how you cast it.

Animal Messenger
Banishment
Barkskin
Beast Sense
Bestow Curse
Blight
Chill Touch
Chromatic Orb
Clone
Compelled Duel
Contagion
Crown of Madness
Cure Wounds
Death Ward
Detect Thoughts
Dissonant Whispers
Dominate Beast
Dominate Monster
Dominate Person
Feeblemind
Feign Death
Finger of Death
Flesh to Stone
Foresight
Freedom of Movement
Gaseous Form
Geas
Greater Invisibility
Greater Restoration
Guidance
Guiding Bolt
Harm
Haste
Heal
Healing Word
Hex
Imprisonment
Inflict Wounds
Jump
Lesser Restoration
Mage Armor
Maze
Melf's Acid Arrow
Mind Blank
Modify Memory
Otto's Irrestible Dance
Phantasmal Force
Phantasmal Killer
Poison Spray
Polymorph
Power Word Heal
Power Word Kill
Power Word Stun
Protection from Energy
Protection from Evil and Good
Protection from Poison
Raise Dead
Ray of Enfeeblement
Ray of Frost
Ray of Sickness
Regenerate
Reincarnate
Resistance
Ressurection
Revivify
Sacred Flame
Sanctuary
Sending
Shield of Faith
Shocking Grasp
Simulacrum
Spare the Dying
Speak with Dead
Spider Climb
Suggestion
Tasha's Hideous Laughter
Telepathy
Thorn Whip
Tongues
True Ressurection
True Seeing
True Strike
Vicious Mockery
Warding Bond
Witch Bolt

[Fwiffo86]

As I said countless times before; "You can hurl them at one target or several." Scorching Ray explicitly mentions that you can, and that it does count as one target.


I do understand what you are saying. But I don't view the wording you do. I will demonstrate with a visual aid.

"You can hurl them at one target or several."
Or in complicated English:
You can hurl them at one target. You can hurl them at several targets. Or simply being used to condense the sentence.

By drawing attention to the entire qualifier, instead of the part you are focusing on, I hope you can see why I feel the way I do. It is only because it includes the option for several, and is not considered 1 hit as Magic Missile that I'm even pointing this out. I agree with the statement (I forget the poster) that a spell qualifies or it doesn't. It isn't situational.

I also agree with the once the rays have been created, the spell is officially done being cast. (though I understand the RAI comes into effect here, and this is largely a philosophical viewpoint) If it weren't it wouldn't require a roll to hit like magic missile.



I made a list for your game, not all sorcerer spells, but all spells. Only one creature is ever possible to be targeted by any of these spells no matter how you cast it.

Animal Messenger
Banishment
Barkskin
Beast Sense
Bestow Curse
Blight
Chill Touch
Chromatic Orb
Clone
Compelled Duel
Contagion
Crown of Madness
Cure Wounds
Death Ward
Detect Thoughts
Dissonant Whispers
Dominate Beast
Dominate Monster
Dominate Person
Feeblemind
Feign Death
Finger of Death
Flesh to Stone
Foresight
Freedom of Movement
Gaseous Form
Geas
Greater Invisibility
Greater Restoration
Guidance
Guiding Bolt
Harm
Haste
Heal
Healing Word
Hex
Imprisonment
Inflict Wounds
Jump
Lesser Restoration
Mage Armor
Maze
Melf's Acid Arrow
Mind Blank
Modify Memory
Otto's Irrestible Dance
Phantasmal Force
Phantasmal Killer
Poison Spray
Polymorph
Power Word Heal
Power Word Kill
Power Word Stun
Protection from Energy
Protection from Evil and Good
Protection from Poison
Raise Dead
Ray of Enfeeblement
Ray of Frost
Ray of Sickness
Regenerate
Reincarnate
Resistance
Ressurection
Revivify
Sacred Flame
Sanctuary
Sending
Shield of Faith
Shocking Grasp
Simulacrum
Spare the Dying
Speak with Dead
Spider Climb
Suggestion
Tasha's Hideous Laughter
Telepathy
Thorn Whip
Tongues
True Ressurection
True Seeing
True Strike
Vicious Mockery
Warding Bond
Witch Bolt

Thank you. This will be useful. And was awesome of you to do.
Wait... doesn't True Strike target self?

[Sartharina]

... that's a lot of sorcery points being burned.

And, yeah. An 11th-level Great Weapon Battlemaster Fighter using Action Surge and Great WeaponMastery can deal 12d6(48)+90+5d10(27.5) damage to a single target by burning all his Superiority Dice (Probably opening with Trip Attack) for 165 average damage.

[Symphony]

Which is one creature per ray. Or Three.

Uh, if I target the same creature three times, I am targeting only one creature. I am not targeting three creatures.

If you want to prevent the "overpowered-ness" of a twinned Scorching Ray, you can easily rule that twinning Scorching Ray would be the same as twinning a 2nd level slot Charm Person, allowing Scorching Ray to target a 2nd creature with the same spell can be interpreted as allowing some of the rays to target a 2nd creature, in other words wasting the sorcery points.

I would not make this ruling, because I'm in the camp that feels Sorcerers need all the help they can get. But at your table, that would be a ruling that is 100% supported by RAW.

[Fwiffo86]

Uh, if I target the same creature three times, I am targeting only one creature. I am not targeting three creatures.

If you want to prevent the "overpowered-ness" of a twinned Scorching Ray, you can easily rule that twinning Scorching Ray would be the same as twinning a 2nd level slot Charm Person, allowing Scorching Ray to target a 2nd creature with the same spell can be interpreted as allowing some of the rays to target a 2nd creature, in other words wasting the sorcery points.

I would not make this ruling, because I'm in the camp that feels Sorcerers need all the help they can get. But at your table, that would be a ruling that is 100% supported by RAW.

That is fair. I don't feel Sorcs need that much help though. They can already modify spells, and sac Sorc points for additional slots. And if you follow the leveling rules for Wiz, instead of handing out scrolls hand over fist, they really don't know that many less spells than a wiz. But that is a separate issue for another thread.

[Ferrin33]

I do understand what you are saying. But I don't view the wording you do. I will demonstrate with a visual aid.

"You can hurl them at one target or several."
Or in complicated English:
You can hurl them at one target. You can hurl them at several targets. Or simply being used to condense the sentence.

By drawing attention to the entire qualifier, instead of the part you are focusing on, I hope you can see why I feel the way I do. It is only because it includes the option for several, and is not considered 1 hit as Magic Missile that I'm even pointing this out. I agree with the statement (I forget the poster) that a spell qualifies or it doesn't. It isn't situational.

Let me give you an example why we're using the proper use of target; A group of thugs sees a frail old lady shouting at them, the group of thugs target the lady. The lady is thus targeted by a group of individuals, but is still only one target. She isn't a multitude of targets because multiple individuals are targeting her, she's the sole target of a collective. Now look at Scorching Ray again, and notice how "Spell" and "Group of thugs" are very similar.


I also agree with the once the rays have been created, the spell is officially done being cast. (though I understand the RAI comes into effect here, and this is largely a philosophical viewpoint) If it weren't it wouldn't require a roll to hit like magic missile.

That's evidently not true for any mechanical purpose or reading of the RAW as you admit yourself partially. Requiring a to hit roll is irrelevant as far as targeting goes.


Thank you. This will be useful. And was awesome of you to do.
Wait... doesn't True Strike target self?

No problem, I suggest checking all the spells it doesn't work on though, like Fire Bolt. It will be an eye-opener. (Hopefully)

[Fwiffo86]

Let me give you an example why we're using the proper use of target; A group of thugs sees a frail old lady shouting at them, the group of thugs target the lady. The lady is thus targeted by a group of individuals, but is still only one target. She isn't a multitude of targets because multiple individuals are targeting her, she's the sole target of a collective. Now look at Scorching Ray again, and notice how "Spell" and "Group of thugs" are very similar.


A group of thugs directed by one individual telling them who their target is/isn't would be more accurate. As the rays do not select their own target.

Which doesn't change the fact that there are three thugs. Each having to target someone.

[ImperiousLeader]

But one old lady. Or two ... if we Twin the thugs.

[Fwiffo86]

But one old lady. Or two ... if we Twin the thugs.

3 rays hit 1 lady =/= 1 ray hitting the lady 3 times.

If it were the same ray hitting her three times, that would work as written for Twin.

[Rummy]

... that's a lot of sorcery points being burned.

And, yeah. An 11th-level Great Weapon Battlemaster Fighter using Action Surge and Great WeaponMastery can deal 12d6(48)+90+5d10(27.5) damage to a single target by burning all his Superiority Dice (Probably opening with Trip Attack) for 165 average damage.

Sold. I was in the scared it is way overpowered camp, but you've convinced me it is merely powerful, not OP. Congrats, you've won the internets.

[Dralnu]

Assuming 11th level (Warlock 2/ Sorcerer 9) with Hex and and thats a (3d10+15+3d6) + (3d10+15+3d6) Twinned Agonising Eldrich blast on top of your Twinned Scorching ray.

So it becomes a 12 ray (36d6+60) + 6 blast (6d10+30+6d6) Nova strike. At 11th level. Or around 300 points of damage on average if they all hit.

Two seperate targets take (21d6+3d10+45) or around 150 damage a pop on average... each

Can you find me a similar ability or spell available to an 11th level character? Anything even remotely close?

270 damage average, 135 per target, if all 18 attacks hit. How are you going to guarantee that all of these hit? It's mathematically highly improbable that you're getting 18/18.

How many times can a sorcerer do this per long rest? It costs 5 sorcery points to Twin a 5th level Scorching Ray. It's another 2 to quicken it so you can fit in Eldritch Blast. It's another 1 sorcery point to Twin Eldritch Blast. That's 8/9 Sorcery points spent, and 1/1 of your 5th level spells.

To do this a second time, you need to spend 7 sorcery points to get another 5th level spell, so you need 15 sorcery points to do this again. You expend a single spell as a bonus action, so the fastest you can cast again is 8 more rounds, so let's agree that you're only doing Twinned Quickened Scorching Ray + Twinned Eldritch Blast once per encounter. If you expend literally every single spell you've got to feed into sorcery points, you can get a total of 31 points (can only hold 9 at a time though). So you can do this 3 times per long rest, once per encounter, leaving you with one 1st level slot and cantrips for the rest of the day.



11th level fighter battle master swings his greatsword (2d6+5) 3 times (6d6+15). He will use his action surge to attack twice, so 6 attacks (12d6+30). He can add his one of his superiority dice (1d10) to the damage of each attack, up to his total of 5 (5d10).

His first attack will be Trip Attack, knocking the target prone and allowing his subsequent 5 attacks (and any other melee party member) have combat advantage. On swing 2, if no ally weapon user is in range, he will bring them to his target with Maneuvering Attack, otherwise he will have an ally attack as a reaction with Commander's Strike. Swing 3-6 he can do whatever the hell he wants to the poor target, disarm it, goad it, spit on it, whatever.

That's 12d6 (42)+ 5d10 (27.5) + 30 damage, or 100 damage on average if all swings hit, but unlike your highly unlikely 18/18 hit average, 5/6 of these swings all have combat advantage. If any party member also has a weapon they can attack with as a reaction, Commander's Strike should add another 10 damage there, assuming it's only one other party member that can do this. 110 damage on a target all attacks with combat advantage. He can do this once per short rest.

Now let's add Great Weapon Master. Since he has combat advantage on 5/6 swings, and you assume all 18/18 rays hit as an acceptable average, I'm going to say that the fighter chooses to take a -5 penalty to all attack rolls for +10 damage to every swing, since he'll have combat advantage on 5/6 let's assume, like you did, that everything hits. Now we're doing (12d6 + 5d10 + 90) 160 damage, plus the target is prone, and another ally has attacked him for free as a reaction. And whenever he crits or drops a creature (likely, he just dealt 160 damage to a poor fellow), he gets an extra attack as a bonus action, which he hasn't used yet, and he potentially gets two of due to Action Surge. With each bonus attack averaging 22 damage, and he can get up to 2 of these, he's really doing 182 or even 204 damage total.

The fighter also gets to reroll all damage dice that turns up as 1's and 2's, which certainly inflate the average damage further, but I don't know how to take that into consideration so I've left it out.

That's a straight fighter too. No dips anywhere. I'm sure we could do even better if we were cherry picking class abilities and setting the level at the perfect sweet spot to prove a point.

Let me reiterate: The fighter is doing this once per short rest. The sorcerer is doing this up to 3 times per encounter per long rest, and has devoted all his resources to those 3 spells. And the sorcerer isn't superior in single target damage, only multi-target.

So no, the sorcerer's damage isn't OP. And if you say "can't Twin Scorching Ray because OP," you should re-evaluate that stance.

[DrLemniscate]

Come on guys.

If your main argument against being able to Twin Scorching Ray is the damage, doesn't that speak to its excessive damage on a non-Twinned basis?

All Twinned Spell does is take your spell hitting one guy, and duplicate it at a second guy. If it's doing too much damage, that is the spell's problem.

If you are uncomfortable with the damage of a Twinned Scorching Ray, that probably means you should look at houserule nerfing its base damage.

[DrLemniscate]

The fighter also gets to reroll all damage dice that turns up as 1's and 2's, which certainly inflate the average damage further, but I don't know how to take that into consideration so I've left it out.


Short answer: 2d6 has an average damage of 8.333..., 1d12 has an average damage of 7.333...

Long answer:

Average dice roll can be easily calculated for, say, a 2d6 as (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6 * 2, or 3.5 * 2 = 7.

Since 1's and 2's are being rerolled, just replace their value with the average value, or (3.5+3.5+3+4+5+6)/6 * 2, or 4.166... * 2 = 8.333

This might look a little hand-wavey, but it also works out if you expand it and calculate it with probabilities (i.e., probability of a 1 is 2/36, probability of a 6 is 8/36).

[Ferrin33]

[QUOTE=Dralnu;18130957]

The fighter also gets to reroll all damage dice that turns up as 1's and 2's, which certainly inflate the average damage further, but I don't know how to take that into consideration so I've left it out.
QUOTE]

Short answer: 2d6 has an average damage of 8.333..., 1d12 has an average damage of 7.333...

Long answer:

Average dice roll can be easily calculated for, say, a 2d6 as (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6 * 2, or 3.5 * 2 = 7.

Since 1's and 2's are being rerolled, just replace their value with the average value, or (3.5+3.5+3+4+5+6)/6 * 2, or 4.166... * 2 = 8.333

This might look a little hand-wavey, but it also works out if you expand it and calculate it with probabilities (i.e., probability of a 1 is 2/36, probability of a 6 is 8/36).

1/3 chance on a d6 to reroll it's damage, so if you roll 6d6 for damage 4d6 of those roll 3-6 instead of 1-6, the other 2d6 are on average rerolled so still roll 1-6 each. So the average damage you'd deal with 6d6 with great weapon master is:

4d6= 4.5 average per die, 18 total.
2d6=3.5 average per die, 7 total.
25 average of 6d6 if you reroll the first result of 1-2 per die.

[Dralnu]

Oh wow, thank you for the math lesson! That makes sense to me, much appreciated :smallbiggrin:

Follow-up question: is it possible to calculate combat advantage as a +hit modifier? What is the increaed likelihood that I hit rolling 2*1d20 and taking the best result over rolling 1d20?

[Dralnu]

Alright, so our lvl 11 fighter's great weapon master action surge attack w/ greatsword spending all his superiority dice is actually 12d6 (49.998) + 5d10 (27.5) + 90 is actually 167 damage, 5/6 of those attacks with combat advantage, the target is prone, and likely 1-2 allies got a free swing at the target as a reaction too. If the fighter crits/drops a target while swinging, he gets 1-2 bonus attacks at 23 damage per swing, an average 213 damage. He does this once per short rest.

The sorcerer9/warlock2 casting Quickened Twinned Scorching Ray + Twinned Eldritch Blast is still doing 135 damage per target, for 270 damage total, none of his 18 attacks having combat advantage. He does this up to three times per long rest, once maximum per encounter, leaving him with one 1st level spell and cantrips for the rest of his attacks.

Not sure what the problem is.

[Ferrin33]

Alright, so our lvl 11 fighter's great weapon master action surge attack w/ greatsword spending all his superiority dice is actually 12d6 (49.998) + 5d10 (27.5) + 90 is actually 167 damage, 5/6 of those attacks with combat advantage, the target is prone, and likely 1-2 allies got a free swing at the target as a reaction too. If the fighter crits/drops a target while swinging, he gets 1-2 bonus attacks at 23 damage per swing, an average 213 damage. He does this once per short rest.

The sorcerer9/warlock2 casting Quickened Twinned Scorching Ray + Twinned Eldritch Blast is still doing 135 damage per target, for 270 damage total, none of his 18 attacks having combat advantage. He does this up to three times per long rest, once maximum per encounter, leaving him with one 1st level spell and cantrips for the rest of his attacks.

Not sure what the problem is.

Not to mention combat advantage gives less misses and more chance on crits in general!

[Fwiffo86]

Too much math makes me want to avoid life. I generally ignore the ave damage calculations because they are seldom helpful to me. But once in awhile you get some astounding results.

For this thread.... I don't think the issue is the damage capability of SR being Twinned. But it is good to know how it works.

[DrLemniscate]

Oh wow, thank you for the math lesson! That makes sense to me, much appreciated :smallbiggrin:

Follow-up question: is it possible to calculate combat advantage as a +hit modifier? What is the increaed likelihood that I hit rolling 2*1d20 and taking the best result over rolling 1d20?

Advantage will add an average of 3.33 (repeating of course), but this isn't really accurate since you can still get a 1 with advantage.

If you want to see probabilities, go to anydice.com and put in "output [highest 1 of 2d20]", then click "Calculate".

If you want to add proficiency / attack modifiers, just add it on the end. " + 4"

If you hit the "At Least" button, you might get a better idea on your chances to hit.

If I have a +5 to hit (+2 Proficiency, +3 Mod), then with advantage I would have (for example), a 91% chance to hit AC 12, 75% chance to hit AC 16, etc.

[Ferrin33]

Too much math makes me want to avoid life. I generally ignore the ave damage calculations because they are seldom helpful to me. But once in awhile you get some astounding results.

For this thread.... I don't think the issue is the damage capability of SR being Twinned. But it is good to know how it works.

It's only relevant if your argument would be that it's OP.

I'm curious though, did you look through the list I made? Wondering what you think of the spells I left out.

[Fwiffo86]

It's only relevant if your argument would be that it's OP.

I'm curious though, did you look through the list I made? Wondering what you think of the spells I left out.

I cannot really take a look at them right now. I am at work and AFB. I will later today and update you then by PM. Sound good?

[Ferrin33]

I cannot really take a look at them right now. I am at work and AFB. I will later today and update you then by PM. Sound good?

Ah I don't really pay attention much to my PM's, so don't expect a quick answer, but I'd appreciate that, thank you.

[pwykersotz]

I'm in the camp with Fwiffo86 and Malifice. I don't really care whether it's overpowered or not...I'm mostly looking at it from a simulationist PoV. If you can metamagic a spell, you can metamagic a spell. If you cannot, you cannot. Resolving the spell text should not affect that in my opinion. It creates more confusion at the table than its worth. As soon as you have to nest conditions like that, I feel like the point of the simplicity has been rendered moot.

[Dark Tira]

I'm in the camp with Fwiffo86 and Malifice. I don't really care whether it's overpowered or not...I'm mostly looking at it from a simulationist PoV. If you can metamagic a spell, you can metamagic a spell. If you cannot, you cannot. Resolving the spell text should not affect that in my opinion. It creates more confusion at the table than its worth. As soon as you have to nest conditions like that, I feel like the point of the simplicity has been rendered moot.

I find it's the opposite. It's simpler to apply a checklist to determine when a spell is cast if it can be twinned than it is to have to check the spell text to make sure that the spell doesn't have a situation where it can't be. Also I'd feel like an idiot and a tyrant if I said to a player that Firebolt can't be twinned because you could light a tree stump on fire with it.

[Ferrin33]

I'm in the camp with Fwiffo86 and Malifice. I don't really care whether it's overpowered or not...I'm mostly looking at it from a simulationist PoV. If you can metamagic a spell, you can metamagic a spell. If you cannot, you cannot. Resolving the spell text should not affect that in my opinion. It creates more confusion at the table than its worth. As soon as you have to nest conditions like that, I feel like the point of the simplicity has been rendered moot.

A fair point, but we were discussing RAW. I don't feel it's such a huge issue or makes it more complicated though as it's what you do with the spell when it's cast, not what it could do. But feel free to use the list of spells I made that use the strictest possible reading of it, not allowing it if it could ever target anything other than a single creature. Keep in mind this is not RAW and you should notify your sorcerer player of this to avoid confusion. It would really suck if he wants to twin his fire bolt only to be told "no" while in the middle of the game.

[Rummy]

Alright, so our lvl 11 fighter's great weapon master action surge attack w/ greatsword spending all his superiority dice is actually 12d6 (49.998) + 5d10 (27.5) + 90 is actually 167 damage, 5/6 of those attacks with combat advantage, the target is prone, and likely 1-2 allies got a free swing at the target as a reaction too. If the fighter crits/drops a target while swinging, he gets 1-2 bonus attacks at 23 damage per swing, an average 213 damage. He does this once per short rest.

The sorcerer9/warlock2 casting Quickened Twinned Scorching Ray + Twinned Eldritch Blast is still doing 135 damage per target, for 270 damage total, none of his 18 attacks having combat advantage. He does this up to three times per long rest, once maximum per encounter, leaving him with one 1st level spell and cantrips for the rest of his attacks.

Not sure what the problem is.

A full sorcerer trades out the extra d6 from Hex for advantage on all the attacks from Greater Invisibility. And pulls off the trick two levels earlier. Also, the rogue is invisible too.

[Ferrin33]

A full sorcerer trades out the extra d6 from Hex for advantage on all the attacks from Greater Invisibility. And pulls off the trick two levels earlier. Also, the rogue is invisible too.

Using Greater Invisiblity means he can do that amount of damage one less time that day, and can only do it for one of those bursts as it takes too long to recharge.

[Rummy]

Come on guys.

If your main argument against being able to Twin Scorching Ray is the damage, doesn't that speak to its excessive damage on a non-Twinned basis?

All Twinned Spell does is take your spell hitting one guy, and duplicate it at a second guy. If it's doing too much damage, that is the spell's problem.

If you are uncomfortable with the damage of a Twinned Scorching Ray, that probably means you should look at houserule nerfing its base damage.

When there is legitimate ambiguity on a rule, examining if the more lenient interpretation is OP is a logical and prudent course of action. Also, it can give insight into RAI. In this case, my initial ruling was to disallow Twinning SR, but evidence that it is on par with the nova capabilities of other intelligent builds has made be decide to Let It Go. Over the years I've learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.

[Dralnu]

A full sorcerer trades out the extra d6 from Hex for advantage on all the attacks from Greater Invisibility. And pulls off the trick two levels earlier. Also, the rogue is invisible too.

You mean straight sorcerer11? You don't just lose Hex, you also lose Eldritch Blast. You can swap out Eldritch Blast for Twinned Firebolt but it's certainly a drop in damage.

Yeah, you can add Greater Invisibility to get combat advantage, which would be prudent.. but now you can only do you nova twice per day instead of three times, once per encounter.

[Ferrin33]

You mean straight sorcerer11? You don't just lose Hex, you also lose Eldritch Blast. You can swap out Eldritch Blast for Twinned Firebolt but it's certainly a drop in damage.

Yeah, you can add Greater Invisibility to get combat advantage, which would be prudent.. but now you can only do you nova twice per day instead of three times, once per encounter.

All of this makes me feel 5e is pretty damn well balanced. At least compared to 3.5. :smallbiggrin:

I mean it though, There's some really interesting things you get and give up at most levels of nearly any class. Some better breakpoints than others, but overall it's amazing in my opinion.

The sorcerer spending all of its resources going nova isn't really a problem, especially because he can only do it once per encounter. It will depend on the challenges the party faces to see who's skills are more effective as they all have their upsides and downsides, but overall balance out fairly well in my opinion.

[pwykersotz]

A fair point, but we were discussing RAW. I don't feel it's such a huge issue or makes it more complicated though as it's what you do with the spell when it's cast, not what it could do. But feel free to use the list of spells I made that use the strictest possible reading of it, not allowing it if it could ever target anything other than a single creature. Keep in mind this is not RAW and you should notify your sorcerer player of this to avoid confusion. It would really suck if he wants to twin his fire bolt only to be told "no" while in the middle of the game.

Actually, when I ran it by my players, they legitimately laughed at the thought that you could Twin Scorching Ray. So I won't need to be worrying about that.

As far as discussing RAW, I think both sides are discussing it. I was offering my interpretation with leaving the RAW behind since it's ambiguous. The spell can easily be used either way, I can see both sides. It just matters how you think of the game and of magic. It's not so much a matter of who's right and who's wrong with this one...like it has been pointed out, it doesn't seem to be brokenly powerful, it's just a matter of interpretation.

Also, I would likewise offer the advice, make sure players in your game know this option is on the table. If they default to a position anywhere near mine, it will clear a lot of confusion. :smallsmile:

[Ferrin33]

Actually, when I ran it by my players, they legitimately laughed at the thought that you could Twin Scorching Ray. So I won't need to be worrying about that.

As far as discussing RAW, I think both sides are discussing it. I was offering my interpretation with leaving the RAW behind since it's ambiguous. The spell can easily be used either way, I can see both sides. It just matters how you think of the game and of magic. It's not so much a matter of who's right and who's wrong with this one...like it has been pointed out, it doesn't seem to be brokenly powerful, it's just a matter of interpretation.

Also, I would likewise offer the advice, make sure players in your game know this option is on the table. If they default to a position anywhere near mine, it will clear a lot of confusion. :smallsmile:

RAW the only ambiguity is about "When you cast" and whether you have chosen any options you are using for the spell at this time. If it's before you have chosen anything of the spell the only viable spells are in the list I made. Otherwise Scorching Ray works, by RAW.

[Doug Lampert]

RAW the only ambiguity is about "When you cast" and whether you have chosen any options you are using for the spell at this time. If it's before you have chosen anything of the spell the only viable spells are in the list I made. Otherwise Scorching Ray works, by RAW.

But IF scorching ray works, then the ability still does NOTHING, since it doesn't duplicate the spell but simply allows the spell to effect two targets, and scorching ray already had that ability.

No duplicated spell, so no extra rays, just the ability to hit two targets with the rays you get, which you already had.

[Theodoxus]

But IF scorching ray works, then the ability still does NOTHING, since it doesn't duplicate the spell but simply allows the spell to effect two targets, and scorching ray already had that ability.

No duplicated spell, so no extra rays, just the ability to hit two targets with the rays you get, which you already had.

That is an interesting take... though I would argue that it does duplicate the spell - that's what the MM codifies.


As for the rest of the discussion, this is quickly devolving into the old Atomic Clock / Shot in Motion debate in Amtgard. And it's something (if this argument comes up) that the DM will need to decide on - the metaphysics of magic in his campaign world.

Do casters designate targets at the start of the cast (and thus Twin would work regardless of if the spell can target multiple) or at the end of the cast (and thus Twin would only work on spells that specifically only ever target one creature). Neither position is truer than the other - but they are true/false to themselves and should be definitively decided by each DM.