Which spells can be twinned?

[Dalebert]

This subject started to get elaborate in the Simple RAW thread so I made a new thread. Please continue.

Re: Hex Hellish Rebuke (Edited because I put "Hex" and meant "Hellish Rebuke".)
I'm not sure how I feel about this one but the person has a point about valid targets. The thing is, Twinned specifically gets around this and adds functionality to a spell that isn't otherwise there, i.e. adding a target that is presumed to be the caster's choice.

Re: Maximillian's Earthen Grasp.
I think I might agree that it can't be twinned but for a different reason. The problem is you can change targets later in the duration which might imply that it's not a single target. I'm not sure though. One target at a time might still qualify something as being twinnable.

[Tanarii]

You'll have to be clearer on exactly what point of twinning is being debated.

Twin spell works like this:
If:
1) at the time of casting
2) targets only one creature
3) doesn't have the range of self
Then:
A) target a second creature in range
B) with the same spell

At that point, the spell stays in effect as usual on each target. For example, for Hex, you only get to move it to one new target per bonus action used.

Maximilian's targets an unoccupied square, so it can't be twinned. That it can reach for a different creature without moving location nut that's irrelevant for two reason: 1) that's after the casting, 2) it hasn't changed the target location to do so.

Tbh the fact that spells don't have a 'Target' line is a pain in the ass. Especially when twin metamagic is a thing.

[coredump]

MEG does not target a square. That is simply a description of how and where the spell effects manifests. The spell clearly and explicitly refers to the creature effected at "the target" several times.

Just like Burning Hands doesn't 'target' your fingers; it's just a description of how the effect manifests.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Do note, that if a spell at its base level only targets one creature it can be twinned. However if you cast it at a higher level and it then has multiple targets, that higher level spell slot version can't be twinned.

Hold Person for example.

Oh and yeah, spells should have a target line and not just a range or whatever...

[Dalebert]

I was talking about Hellish Rebuke; not Hex. I've edited to correct. The question was whether Hellish Rebuke can be Twinned.

It meets all the criteria for twinning a spell. The question is which creatures would be an eligible second target, if any, and if there's no eligible second target, does it then mean it just can't be twinned?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I was talking about Hellish Rebuke; not Hex. I've edited to correct. The question was whether Hellish Rebuke can be Twinned.

It meets all the criteria for twinning a spell. The question is which creatures would be an eligible second target, if any, and if there's no eligible second target, does it then mean it just can't be twinned?

RAW: No it can't be twinned at all. The second target doesn't qualify to be a target of the spell. It would be like using Twin Spell on a cantrip that only targets creatures to target an object. The devs have stated that they specifically made targets what they were.

Rule of Cool/Funny: Hell yes, hurting an enemy because his friend hit you is just golden and gives other creatures incentive to keep their allies from hurting you (if you are trying to talk down the enemies). It makes Hellish Rebuke a really hostage spell.

[E’Tallitnics]

I think it really boils down to what's considered a 'target'. This seems to be a game term. (I just recently found out that those bold words actually mean something! In this case I assume it's a game term because it's an entire subhead listing.)

Player’s Handbook (p. 204):
TARGETS
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).

Charm Person can be twinned, but never uses the word "target". Fireball cannot be twinned, yet uses the word "target".
Both of the above spells use "creature".

This is why I said in the RAW thread that Maximilian’s Earthen Grasp cannot be twinned because the spell description reads, "You choose a 5-foot-square unoccupied space on the ground that you can see within range. A Medium hand made from compacted soil rises there and reaches for one creature you can see within 5 feet of it."

Even though the spell goes on to affect "one creature" the initial casting of the spell doesn't target "one creature" but open ground.

It's the same logic I used for the Spiritual Weapon question and no one disagreed when I posted that comment in the RAW Thread. Which doesn't matter, things evolve as our understand of the game does.

Any who, I've tweeted this question to MM and JC so perhaps we'll get an answer from the devs.

[Tanarii]

This is why I said in the RAW thread that Maximilian’s Earthen Grasp cannot be twinned because the spell description reads, "You choose a 5-foot-square unoccupied space on the ground that you can see within range. A Medium hand made from compacted soil rises there and reaches for one creature you can see within 5 feet of it."

Even though the spell goes on to affect "one creature" the initial casting of the spell doesn't target "one creature" but open ground.
That's my interpretation too.

[Dalebert]

Any who, I've tweeted this question to MM and JC so perhaps we'll get an answer from the devs.

Thank you. I'm curious what they will say. I actually agree with you about Maximillian's but for very different reasons. (Yes, I'm rethinking it now, or rather returning to a previously held position.) The hand is the effect. The person it grabs is the target. The thing is, it's not single-target for the same reason Spiritual Weapon isn't. You can move the effect to someone else and attack them in a later round. If either spell was restricted to attacking the same target for the duration, it should be twinnable. This seems fairly obvious to me.

The spot on the ground becoming a hand is no more a target than the firebolt itself is a target. It's the effect of the spell. And just to be clear based on the game terms you described. The hand is the effect while the target is what it affects--noun and verb respectively. Yes, the ground gets temporarily altered but that's just the fluff of it. The mechanical impact is on the creature nearby.

The firebolt is the effect. The target is what it affects or acts upon.

If it is possible for the spell to mechanically affect more than one target, it's not twinnable. This is why Ice Knife isn't twinnable. You pick just one target but the spell then goes on to potentially affect more targets than the one. If your reason for Maximillian's and Spiritual Weapon were the problem with twinning them then Ice Knife should, in fact, be twinnable. It clearly targets a single creature per the game meaning of "target".

[SharkForce]

the spell doesn't target the ground though. the ground does not make a saving throw. the person being grabbed does.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

the spell doesn't target the ground though. the ground does not make a saving throw. the person being grabbed does.

Spike Growth targets the ground but creatures take the damage. Spike Growth can't be twinned as it doesn't target 1 creature.

As a DM I would be ok with MM Earthen Grasp being twinned, rule of cool after all, but by RAW... No it can't be twinned.

[SharkForce]

Spike Growth targets the ground but creatures take the damage. Spike Growth can't be twinned as it doesn't target 1 creature.

As a DM I would be ok with MM Earthen Grasp being twinned, rule of cool after all, but by RAW... No it can't be twinned.

maximilian's earthen grasp contains the following lines in the description, word for word:

"The target must make a Strength saving throw"
"On a failed save, the target takes 2d6 bludgeoning damage..."
"As an action, you can cause the hand to crush the restrained target..."
"To break out, the restrained target can..."
"The hand releases a restrained target..."

now, you can go ahead and try to argue that the ground is the target, but i kinda have a sneaking suspicion that the ground is not what needs to make a strength saving thrrow, takes bludgeoning damage if it fails, can be crushed with an action, can attempt to break out, or is released by the hand at any point.

in fact, i'm going to go so far as to say that the description of the spell does not merely *imply* that the ground is not the target, but that it goes so far as to clearly indicate that the creature grabbed by the spell is the target.

(though i still say it's a shame the spell doesn't scale with spell level, the earlier edition predecessors all created more hands as you gained levels, which would make the ability to twin the spell mostly a moot point).

[SpawnOfMorbo]

maximilian's earthen grasp contains the following lines in the description, word for word:

"The target must make a Strength saving throw"
"On a failed save, the target takes 2d6 bludgeoning damage..."
"As an action, you can cause the hand to crush the restrained target..."
"To break out, the restrained target can..."
"The hand releases a restrained target..."

now, you can go ahead and try to argue that the ground is the target, but i kinda have a sneaking suspicion that the ground is not what needs to make a strength saving thrrow, takes bludgeoning damage if it fails, can be crushed with an action, can attempt to break out, or is released by the hand at any point.

in fact, i'm going to go so far as to say that the description of the spell does not merely *imply* that the ground is not the target, but that it goes so far as to clearly indicate that the creature grabbed by the spell is the target.

(though i still say it's a shame the spell doesn't scale with spell level, the earlier edition predecessors all created more hands as you gained levels, which would make the ability to twin the spell mostly a moot point).

So? The target of the spell is still an area, try to munchin/rules lawyer all you want but you are wrong.

It is much like silence, the point chosen is the target, and then the spell effects creatures after the casting. You are confusing the target of the spell and the target of the effect of the spell.

[Dalebert]

in fact, i'm going to go so far as to say that the description of the spell does not merely *imply* that the ground is not the target, but that it goes so far as to clearly indicate that the creature grabbed by the spell is the target.


I agree with you, obviously, but are you suggesting it's twinnable? The problem is you have the option to let go of a target and attempt to grab a different one. Thus it's not single-target.

[SharkForce]

So? The target of the spell is still an area, try to munchin/rules lawyer all you want but you are wrong.

It is much like silence, the point chosen is the target, and then the spell effects creatures after the casting. You are confusing the target of the spell and the target of the effect of the spell.

seriously? you're calling me a munchkin because i read the spell, which repeatedly describes the person being grabbed as a target and never even once describes the ground as being the target, and assume that the spell targets the person?

what, so if i shoot an arrow at someone, what is the target? the bow? the arrow? the quiver i drew the arrow from? the air the arrow passes through? or perhaps it's the bowstring only. or maybe, just maybe, the target is not what i used to fire the arrow, but the guy i fired the arrow at, even though i did so through the medium of several objects, none of which are the thing i'm shooting the arrow at.

seriously, this isn't rules lawyering. people complained that the spell doesn't tell you who the target is, well, this spell bloody well tells you who the target is, repeatedly, using very clear language including the word "target".

now, whether or not it can be twinned is another question. personally, i'd say that it is a single-target spell because even though the target can change, the operative word there is change; you still have a single target at any given time. but you could certainly make the argument that since the spell can change targets, it doesn't count as a single-target spell, and thus is not eligible for being twinned. that said, i'm somewhat biased... in my opinion, metamagic is basically the only thing the sorcerer has, so to me, when in doubt, let metamagic be more awesome unless it breaks the game (i have severe doubts that twinned earthen grasp is going to break the game, for the record).

what is silly is to suggest that the target is the ground when the person writing the spell very clearly did not ever consider the ground to be the target. that's just ridiculous. it's right there, in plain english, multiple times. all those things describing what happens to the target, not a single one of them is describing what happens to the ground, and every single one of them is describing what happens to the person the hand tries to grab.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Snip

Yes, you are obviously trying to munchin/rules lawyer a spell to be twinned when it can not be twinned. Call it whatever you want, but that is exactly what you are doing.

You can say "as a DM I would allow it to be twinned" and that's fine, I did because I'm ok with houseruling, but that's all it would be, a houserule.

The target is a point in space, simple enough. Just like in silence.

[SharkForce]

Yes, you are obviously trying to munchin/rules lawyer a spell to be twinned when it can not be twinned. Call it whatever you want, but that is exactly what you are doing.

You can say "as a DM I would allow it to be twinned" and that's fine, I did because I'm ok with houseruling, but that's all it would be, a houserule.

The target is a point in space, simple enough. Just like in silence.

well, gosh, i'm sure glad you're here to use your psychic powers to tell me what i'm thinking, and also to tell me that even though the author repeatedly makes it clear what the target of the spell is, what he *really* meant is that the target is something completely different from what he said is the target over and over and over. without you around to tell me these things, i would never have realized that i'm part of a secret plot to make maximilian's earthen grasp compatible with twin against the express desires of all the developers (except, apparently, the editor, who must have rewritten the spell as part of the dastardly scheme to repeatedly describe the person being grabbed as the target).

since you have such awesome psychic powers, though, i feel like i no longer need to ever have a discussion with you again, so thanks for clearing that up. from now on, you can just use your psychic powers to discern what i would have said if i were to actually bother reading your posts or responding to them, oh almighty psychic one.


(for anyone wondering, silence contains absolutely zero language that would ever denote the people inside the silence effect as targets, by the way, making the comparison between the two even more silly).

[E’Tallitnics]

maximilian's earthen grasp contains the following lines in the description, word for word:

"The target must make a Strength saving throw"
"On a failed save, the target takes 2d6 bludgeoning damage..."
"As an action, you can cause the hand to crush the restrained target..."
"To break out, the restrained target can..."
"The hand releases a restrained target..."

now, you can go ahead and try to argue that the ground is the target, but i kinda have a sneaking suspicion that the ground is not what needs to make a strength saving thrrow, takes bludgeoning damage if it fails, can be crushed with an action, can attempt to break out, or is released by the hand at any point.

in fact, i'm going to go so far as to say that the description of the spell does not merely *imply* that the ground is not the target, but that it goes so far as to clearly indicate that the creature grabbed by the spell is the target.

(though i still say it's a shame the spell doesn't scale with spell level, the earlier edition predecessors all created more hands as you gained levels, which would make the ability to twin the spell mostly a moot point).

And yet Charm Person can be twinned, yet never mentions 'target' in the spells description until you get to the higher levels part. Which then obviously precludes it from being twinned since it now can affect more than 1 person.

The point of my previous comment in this thread is that the word 'target', in and of itself, cannot be used as a clear indicator of which spells can be twinned.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

well, gosh, i'm sure glad you're here to use your psychic powers to tell me what i'm thinking, and also to tell me that even though the author repeatedly makes it clear what the target of the spell is, what he *really* meant is that the target is something completely different from what he said is the target over and over and over. without you around to tell me these things, i would never have realized that i'm part of a secret plot to make maximilian's earthen grasp compatible with twin against the express desires of all the developers (except, apparently, the editor, who must have rewritten the spell as part of the dastardly scheme to repeatedly describe the person being grabbed as the target).

since you have such awesome psychic powers, though, i feel like i no longer need to ever have a discussion with you again, so thanks for clearing that up. from now on, you can just use your psychic powers to discern what i would have said if i were to actually bother reading your posts or responding to them, oh almighty psychic one.


(for anyone wondering, silence contains absolutely zero language that would ever denote the people inside the silence effect as targets, by the way, making the comparison between the two even more silly).

So wait... Do you not remember what you typed? Because what you typed is telling me (and anyone else) that you are munchining the rules. It didn't take any mind reading for you to get that point across. I call it like I see it.

So are you saying that silence doesn't effect anyone? The target is a point in space and then... Nothing? The spell can effect creatures, the creatures are targets of the spell's effects. You have some weird thoughts on how spells work.

Get mad all you want, but the spell doesn't target a creature. It clearly targets a point in space. The effects of the spell then targets/effects creatures. Like silence, summoning, or countless other spells.

By your logic, summoning spells (that summon one creature) can be twinned because once summoned the creatures then target a creature.

[RickAllison]

The way I would rule MEG is that the target is the "5-foot-square unoccupied space on the ground that you can see within range." A similar spell would be Call Lightning; the target of that spell is the storm you create, and that storm then has an effect that can be directed by the caster. "On each of your turns until the spell ends, you can use your action to call down lightning in this way again, targeting the same point or a different one." This target isn't for the spell, it's for the effect. For MEG, the unoccupied ground is the target and the effect that is unleashed then fulfills the target to which our accused-munchkin referred.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Just to be clear, I don't think it would be broken to allow it to be twinned, just trying to justify it being RAW when it clearly isn't is very munchin.

As a houserule I'm fine with it.

But trying to pull a fast one, or suggest to others to pull a fast one, over a DM is very munchin.

[SharkForce]

And yet Charm Person can be twinned, yet never mentions 'target' in the spells description until you get to the higher levels part. Which then obviously precludes it from being twinned since it now can affect more than 1 person.

The point of my previous comment in this thread is that the word 'target', in and of itself, cannot be used as a clear indicator of which spells can be twinned.

the absence of the word target doesn't mean that something is not the target in a spell (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), but the presence of the word describing something as a target very clearly defines that something as the target (that is, if the spell clearly states that something is the target, then that something must be the target).

can it be twinned? well, that isn't as clear. the spell arguably can have multiple targets (just not at the same time). lightning storm inarguably either has multiple targets, or a target of self.

but the spell repeatedly tells us what the target is, and "the ground" is not it.

[Dalebert]

can it be twinned? well, that isn't as clear. the spell arguably can have multiple targets (just not at the same time). lightning storm inarguably either has multiple targets, or a target of self.

Twinned doesn't say "only one target at a time". It says "targets only one creature". It's clear.

So the argument over whether the ground is the target or the target must be within 5 feet of a spot on the ground is moot. Either way, it's ineligible per RAW. You can house-rule otherwise of course. My sorcerer wouldn't complain if you allowed him to.

[coredump]

This is why I said in the RAW thread that Maximilian’s Earthen Grasp cannot be twinned because the spell description reads, "You choose a 5-foot-square unoccupied space on the ground that you can see within range. A Medium hand made from compacted soil rises there and reaches for one creature you can see within 5 feet of it."

Even though the spell goes on to affect "one creature" the initial casting of the spell doesn't target "one creature" but open ground.

The initial casting does have a target, the creature being grasped. The spell simply gives a description of how the magical effect manifests. You are not targeting the ground, just like Burning Hands does not target your fingers.
The creature being grasped is repeatedly referred to as "the target", that area of ground is just where the hand comes out.



@Marbo: careful on that high horse, its dangerous being up there so high. This has nothing to do with being a 'munchkin', it has to do with reading the rules and interpreting them. The spell effect does not 'target' the ground.... the visual manifestation begins on the ground.... but it isn't doing anything to the ground. The spell clearly, and repeatedly, calls out the grasped creature as "the target"......

[CrusaderJoe]

The initial casting does have a target, the creature being grasped. The spell simply gives a description of how the magical effect manifests. You are not targeting the ground, just like Burning Hands does not target your fingers.
The creature being grasped is repeatedly referred to as "the target", that area of ground is just where the hand comes out.

Burning hands technically doesn't target anyone, it just makes an effect such creatures try to avoid.

The transmutation spell transmutes the ground (the ground is the target of the spell) which then you can control to do stuff.

A spell like fly transmutes the creature you target with the spell. You don't choose a space and then that space gives the creature the ability fly.

[SharkForce]

Burning hands technically doesn't target anyone, it just makes an effect such creatures try to avoid.

The transmutation spell transmutes the ground (the ground is the target of the spell) which then you can control to do stuff.

A spell like fly transmutes the creature you target with the spell. You don't choose a space and then that space gives the creature the ability fly.

once again, if the spell does not state a target, we are left to make guesses as to what the target may be, and "the ground" could be a valid option.

maximilian's earthen grasp does state what the target is, and it is not the ground. because the spell tells us who the target is, you follow that. if there was a spell that didn't tell us what the target is, then we could make a guess, and if it is an area spell you could argue all sorts of things; maybe it's the point the spell originates at, maybe it's the entire area, maybe it is creatures or objects or specific effects within that area, maybe it is something else entirely. but if the spell clearly tells us who the target is, well, that's the target.

[Scuronotte]

Twinned doesn't say "only one target at a time". It says "targets only one creature". It's clear.

So the argument over whether the ground is the target or the target must be within 5 feet of a spot on the ground is moot. Either way, it's ineligible per RAW. You can house-rule otherwise of course. My sorcerer wouldn't complain if you allowed him to.

Through many Sorcerer posts, I've read Tekekinesis is great spell for Twinning with no arguments. And that spell which targets one creature can be changed to another.

[Dimers]

The spell clearly, and repeatedly, calls out the grasped creature as "the target"......

I'd read that as the hand's target, not the spell's, personally. The hand just happens to have a save number equal to yours without the spell description ever coming out and saying it.

Questionable-at-best by RAW, and yet I'll agree with pretty much everyone here that it seems reasonable to allow anyway :smallsmile:


The transmutation spell transmutes the ground (the ground is the target of the spell) which then you can control to do stuff.

Yeah ... lacking the chunk of ground to cast the spell on, there can't be any target, can there? So the spell targets the ground, and the hand targets a creature thereafter. And therefore MEG can't be Twinned because it doesn't target a creature at all.

[SharkForce]

if you use a firebolt in a vacuum or underwater and aim it at a creature there, does it fail because firebolt doesn't have a target, or because the conditions in the area do not suit the spell even though a target is available?

the spell originates from the ground. that does not mean the ground is the target, any more than the bow or the string or the archer's hand is the target when you fire an arrow at someone with a bow. if you had some sort of ability that triggers when you are targeted by a spell, would maximilian's earthen grasp completely bypass that somehow? if the spell is merely altering the ground rather than targeting a person, why do abilities that give a save vs spells work against maximilian's earthen grasp but not against spells that summon *anything else*. when i summon an ape and command it to grapple someone, you can have all the save bonuses against spells that you want, and it won't help you, but those same abilities work just fine when you are the subject of maximilian's earthen grasp.

the point of origin is irrelevant. it doesn't matter whether it is a wizard's finger, the tip of a wand or staff, or the sky. twin doesn't ask about the origin. it asks about the target. and maximilian's earthen grasp repeatedly tells us what the target is.

it may or may not qualify on some other basis, and even on the basis of the target being wrong (on account of it can potentially be used against more than one creature with a single casting), but not because the target is the ground, because the spell tells us the target is *not* the ground, both by how the mechanics work, and as an explicit part of the spell's description.

[Dimers]

if you had some sort of ability that triggers when you are targeted by a spell, would maximilian's earthen grasp completely bypass that somehow? if the spell is merely altering the ground rather than targeting a person, why do abilities that give a save vs spells work against maximilian's earthen grasp but not against spells that summon *anything else*. when i summon an ape and command it to grapple someone, you can have all the save bonuses against spells that you want, and it won't help you, but those same abilities work just fine when you are the subject of maximilian's earthen grasp.

Actually, as a DM I would rule that modifiers to spell saves don't affect MEG's workings. So ... there ya go.

[RickAllison]

the spell originates from the ground. that does not mean the ground is the target, any more than the bow or the string or the archer's hand is the target when you fire an arrow at someone with a bow. if you had some sort of ability that triggers when you are targeted by a spell, would maximilian's earthen grasp completely bypass that somehow? if the spell is merely altering the ground rather than targeting a person, why do abilities that give a save vs spells work against maximilian's earthen grasp but not against spells that summon *anything else*. when i summon an ape and command it to grapple someone, you can have all the save bonuses against spells that you want, and it won't help you, but those same abilities work just fine when you are the subject of maximilian's earthen grasp.

As Dimers said, why would MEG give the opportunity for save vs. spell bonuses? Now, a save vs. grapple or similar bonus would be totally in order. So yeah, sic your MEG on a caster, super fun for their strength at that point!

[SharkForce]

As Dimers said, why would MEG give the opportunity for save vs. spell bonuses? Now, a save vs. grapple or similar bonus would be totally in order. So yeah, sic your MEG on a caster, super fun for their strength at that point!

so what you're saying is that enemies with spell or magic resistance don't get those against MEG?

that's a pretty crucial piece of information for the devs to just expect us to make that leap from the absolutely zero amount of indication they gave that that's a thing. 5e isn't designed to be full of super-secret hidden interactions that change everything. it seems incredibly improbable that the devs made a spell which is intended to completely bypass spell resistance, magic resistance, and immunity, and somehow just didn't bother to ever mention that fact.

[Dalebert]

Telekinesis is very questionable by RAW simply because it can target an object. I don't think it's a good precedent for saying you can switch targets because some folks have decided to allow it to be twinned.

I'm honestly confused at this point. I would be thrilled to find out telekinesis can be twinned and that switching between single targets doesn't disqualify a spell but it seems sketchy at best. Since I play in AL, I'd love to see some "official" tweets one way or another about these.

If I'm DMing, I'm inclined to express quite a bit of leniency because I feal like sorcerers pay such a heavy opportunity cost for MM that it should be pretty dang good.

[RickAllison]

Telekinesis is very questionable by RAW simply because it can target an object. I don't think it's a good precedent for saying you can switch targets because some folks have decided to allow it to be twinned.

I'm honestly confused at this point. I would be thrilled to find out telekinesis can be twinned and that switching between single targets doesn't disqualify a spell but it seems sketchy at best. Since I play in AL, I'd love to see some "official" tweets one way or another about these.

If I'm DMing, I'm inclined to express quite a bit of leniency because I feal like sorcerers pay such a heavy opportunity cost for MM that it should be pretty dang good.

Some official tweets would be lovely. There is a lot of fairly open rulings involving this.

[WarrentheHero]

Wow people are really hostile on this thread...

The way that I would rule MEG by RAW is that it can't be twinned. The spell rather obviously does not "target a single creature" even if it targets a single creature at a time. For very similar reasons I would say Acid Splash can't be twinned, even if you target only one. It can target one creature, but the spell description makes it obvious that it does not target only one creature.

As for the whole debate about targeting, I would say that the spell does not directly target a creature; creatures it lists as "targets" in the spell description are incidental and secondary. Compare to Fireball, which admittedly doesn't use the word "target." The spell targets the point, and then creatures inside the spell are effected; they're incidental targets.

Even if you don't buy that, I'd also like to mention that Twinned Spell largely only cares about targets at time of casting. When you first cast MEG, that is to say when you start to shape the magic, the spell targets no-one. Only [I]after[/] the spell has been cast does it begin to target things. After the spell is cast you can choose to manipulate it, but that's [I]after[/].

Like most DMs in this thread though, even if it's not doable by RAW, I'd allow it for the following reasons:
A) It's cool
B) I'm very leniant at the table
C) It's too petty to argue over at the table
D) It's cool
If I did let someone twin it though, I'd require one stone hand to be a left and one to be a right, and you control them with your respective hands

[SharkForce]

MEG grabs someone in the same action that you cast it. you can use an action later to change targets, or to move the hand, or to cause it to crush the person again, but immediately upon casting you grab someone.

[Dimers]

so what you're saying is that enemies with spell or magic resistance don't get those against MEG?

that's a pretty crucial piece of information for the devs to just expect us to make that leap from the absolutely zero amount of indication they gave that that's a thing. 5e isn't designed to be full of super-secret hidden interactions that change everything. it seems incredibly improbable that the devs made a spell which is intended to completely bypass spell resistance, magic resistance, and immunity, and somehow just didn't bother to ever mention that fact.

Eh, it's just like conjure animals or animate dead. No need to mention that MEG bypasses stuff if one assumes it acts kinda like a creature that you happen to control/influence. If you had a mana-driven trebuchet hurling rocks at magic-resistant creatures, they wouldn't resist the rocks. MEG can be run like that, except melee instead of ranged.

[SharkForce]

except it isn't like conjure animals or animate dead. it doesn't create a creature (or object) at all. the hand has no listed AC, no HP, no saves, no attributes, nothing. the only attribute it has is a save DC, which is what you expect a spell to have. it is no more like conjure animals than call lightning or melf's minute meteors are. it doesn't attack creatures with an attack roll, it doesn't grapple them with an athletics check, it's just an applied spell effect.

[Dimers]

except it isn't like conjure animals or animate dead. it doesn't create a creature (or object) at all. the hand has no listed AC, no HP, no saves, no attributes, nothing. the only attribute it has is a save DC, which is what you expect a spell to have. it is no more like conjure animals than call lightning or melf's minute meteors are. it doesn't attack creatures with an attack roll, it doesn't grapple them with an athletics check, it's just an applied spell effect.

So you wouldn't adjudicate attributes for a MEG hand if a player wanted to attack it? Well, that's not wrong. *shrug* It seems much more grapply than spelly to me, but in the immortal words of Yukon Cornelius the Prospector ... "You eat what you want, I'll eat what I want."

[SharkForce]

So you wouldn't adjudicate attributes for a MEG hand if a player wanted to attack it? Well, that's not wrong. *shrug* It seems much more grapply than spelly to me, but in the immortal words of Yukon Cornelius the Prospector ... "You eat what you want, I'll eat what I want."

it's magic and (maybe) dirt. are you planning on stabbing it right in the magic, or right in the dirt?

(more seriously, i'd say "oh, so you're trying to escape? hey look, there's a rule for that *right in the spell*, why don't we use that?")

[RickAllison]

it's magic and (maybe) dirt. are you planning on stabbing it right in the magic, or right in the dirt?

(more seriously, i'd say "oh, so you're trying to escape? hey look, there's a rule for that *right in the spell*, why don't we use that?")

On the flip side, a maul or another bludgeoning weapon could legitimately do a number on the hand. I would allow someone to try and break the hand with that if they so wished, though that would be more to prevent targeting weaker casters with it.

[Zalabim]

The similar spells to MEG would be Flaming Sphere, Dust Devil, Bigby's Hand, Mordenkainen's Sword, and Spiritual Weapon. When a spell says, "Choose a thing. Magic happens at thing." That thing is a target of the spell. MEG does not target only a single creature, so it doesn't qualify to be twinned.

[RickAllison]

The similar spells to MEG would be Flaming Sphere, Dust Devil, Bigby's Hand, Mordenkainen's Sword, and Spiritual Weapon. When a spell says, "Choose a thing. Magic happens at thing." That thing is a target of the spell. MEG does not target only a single creature, so it doesn't qualify to be twinned.

Exactly... A shame, because I love the idea of having swarms of dust devils by several casters :smallbiggrin:

[SharkForce]

On the flip side, a maul or another bludgeoning weapon could legitimately do a number on the hand. I would allow someone to try and break the hand with that if they so wished, though that would be more to prevent targeting weaker casters with it.

clearly you have never tried to destroy dirt with a hammer before, then. not that it matters, because:

1) it's magic, not just a mundane pile of dirt shaped like a hand
2) there's already a mechanic for "i try to escape", and it isn't an attack roll. if you want to escape, you can fluff it as hitting the hand with a hammer or struggling free or whatever else, but the mechanic should be the one described in the spell unless you come up with something pretty outlandish, and "i attack it" is not particularly unusual to the point where they wouldn't have considered it.

[Tanarii]

He's talking about attacking it to get someone else out of the grapple and/or destroy the spell. But there's also a mechanic for the former: if I'm recalling the spell right, grapple your ally and move them away from the hand will work. There's no mechanic to destroy the hand, other than dispelling it.

[RickAllison]

clearly you have never tried to destroy dirt with a hammer before, then. not that it matters, because:

1) it's magic, not just a mundane pile of dirt shaped like a hand
2) there's already a mechanic for "i try to escape", and it isn't an attack roll. if you want to escape, you can fluff it as hitting the hand with a hammer or struggling free or whatever else, but the mechanic should be the one described in the spell unless you come up with something pretty outlandish, and "i attack it" is not particularly unusual to the point where they wouldn't have considered it.

Indeed there is a mechanic. You couldn't reliably destroy the hand if it was grappling you anyway (no sense of leverage). The reason a maul might work is because it is actually displacing large amounts of the dirt, rather than a blade that is only displacing small amounts. Rather than imagining trying to destroy dirt with a hammer, it's like breaking apart a clod or a mud sculpture. Frankly, there are very few times where that is a viable strategy, but it might be useful on rare occasions (such as for helping characters with low Strength escape). A caster could probably come up with other ways to destroy it (acid if it's made of stone, wind if it's loose dirt or sand, etc.) but it is just clarifying that there are ways to reasonably destroy it. Once again, rarely useful but an important thing to consider.

[SharkForce]

He's talking about attacking it to get someone else out of the grapple and/or destroy the spell. But there's also a mechanic for the former: if I'm recalling the spell right, grapple your ally and move them away from the hand will work. There's no mechanic to destroy the hand, other than dispelling it.

i'd just use the rules for a help action. since, after all, what you're trying to do is *help* the person escape. as to grappling, well, technically that works. personally, i wouldn't allow it, but technically it does work.

@rickallison: mauls won't displace dirt very well. they'll compact it pretty well. but again, this isn't just a pile of dirt. it doesn't have muscles you can tear, or bones you can break, or a form that you can destroy either, any more than you could hammer a puddle of water to destroy it. DMs can certainly rule however they want, but there is no indication that WotC ever considered dealing damage to the dirt to be a viable method of preventing the spell from working (though if you actually moved the *entire* pile of dirt, that would technically work, because the surface would have moved away). in particular, earlier edition versions of the spell actually did have rules for attacking the hand iirc, so if anything i would say that WotC *removed* that from the spell, which would imply they specifically didn't want it any more than they wanted the spell to scale like it did in earlier editions.

but seriously, displacing dirt with a maul? if that worked so well, we would use hammers to dig holes, not shovels.

[RickAllison]

i'd just use the rules for a help action. since, after all, what you're trying to do is *help* the person escape. as to grappling, well, technically that works. personally, i wouldn't allow it, but technically it does work.

@rickallison: mauls won't displace dirt very well. they'll compact it pretty well. but again, this isn't just a pile of dirt. it doesn't have muscles you can tear, or bones you can break, or a form that you can destroy either, any more than you could hammer a puddle of water to destroy it. DMs can certainly rule however they want, but there is no indication that WotC ever considered dealing damage to the dirt to be a viable method of preventing the spell from working (though if you actually moved the *entire* pile of dirt, that would technically work, because the surface would have moved away). in particular, earlier edition versions of the spell actually did have rules for attacking the hand iirc, so if anything i would say that WotC *removed* that from the spell, which would imply they specifically didn't want it any more than they wanted the spell to scale like it did in earlier editions.

but seriously, displacing dirt with a maul? if that worked so well, we would use hammers to dig holes, not shovels.

The issue with that interpretation is that when you are digging, there is more dirt behind that so everything is just compacted. When you just have a hand that's just a column of dirt with nothing but air on the other side? I would allow an attack that would end the spell. It would be either a high Athletics DC check or a high AC attack roll to really find the core of it, but I would allow it as a GM.

Rather than thinking of it as digging, think of it as an elaborate sand castle that's spectacularly sturdy. It becomes very susceptible to a good kick because it has no force of compression to keep the cohesion of the dirt. Without that cohesion, the dirt will just fall off.

[SharkForce]

except there is a force of cohesion. it's called magic, and it is strong enough that it does as much damage as a greatsword when applied to the target, and encompasses the target to the point where they are trapped as thoroughly as if they were pinned to the ceiling by a pillar of stone that erupted from the ground or stuck in a gigantic spider web.

the dirt isn't holding itself together. the magic is. you can't stab it in the magic, you can't bash it in the magic, you can't slice the magic in half, it isn't even a material substance. dirt doesn't form into a hand that captures and crushes you. it has no motive force, no controlling mind, nothing to make it capable of acting. it's the magic that does the trick. you can hit it with a hammer all you want, that isn't going to harm the dirt, and the magic can just move it right back to where it needs the dirt to be.

[RickAllison]

except there is a force of cohesion. it's called magic, and it is strong enough that it does as much damage as a greatsword when applied to the target, and encompasses the target to the point where they are trapped as thoroughly as if they were pinned to the ceiling by a pillar of stone that erupted from the ground or stuck in a gigantic spider web.

the dirt isn't holding itself together. the magic is. you can't stab it in the magic, you can't bash it in the magic, you can't slice the magic in half, it isn't even a material substance. dirt doesn't form into a hand that captures and crushes you. it has no motive force, no controlling mind, nothing to make it capable of acting. it's the magic that does the trick. you can hit it with a hammer all you want, that isn't going to harm the dirt, and the magic can just move it right back to where it needs the dirt to be.

I get that it is magic. It is "A Medium hand made from compacted soil rises there and reaches
for one creature you can see within 5 feet of it." They specifically note it the text for the spell that the soil is compacted, presumably by the magic itself. By attacking, the goal is rupturing that cohesion through displacement of the material. The magic makes the form and compacts the soil in the correct shape, and the attacker is disrupting that form through an attack.

Yes, the magic can reform it. By casting the spell again (or using Mold Earth, that would work just fine as it would allow you to place more earth into the mold). The whole point behind a tabletop game is to allow for unusual interactions with the rules like this to occur. If you DM, you don't have to allow this, that's your prerogative. I like to reward my players for thinking off the tops of their heads rather than playing things solely by the rules as written, and it makes sense to me that a Barbarian with a giant maul can tear a giant hole in a structure of compacted dirt if he's not the one restrained by it. Now, if someone is still inside it, that would pose an issue, as I don't see a way to destabilize the construct sufficiently without smacking the person inside

[Dimers]

Now, if someone is still inside it, that would pose an issue, as I don't see a way to destabilize the construct sufficiently without smacking the person inside

Well, there's disintegrate, though spending a high-level spell to end a low-level one is suboptimal. But I'm in favor of allowing noncasters more options, so I think I'd just rule that a hit against high AC represents a sufficiently accurate blow to do the job.

[SharkForce]

I get that it is magic. It is "A Medium hand made from compacted soil rises there and reaches
for one creature you can see within 5 feet of it." They specifically note it the text for the spell that the soil is compacted, presumably by the magic itself. By attacking, the goal is rupturing that cohesion through displacement of the material. The magic makes the form and compacts the soil in the correct shape, and the attacker is disrupting that form through an attack.

Yes, the magic can reform it. By casting the spell again (or using Mold Earth, that would work just fine as it would allow you to place more earth into the mold). The whole point behind a tabletop game is to allow for unusual interactions with the rules like this to occur. If you DM, you don't have to allow this, that's your prerogative. I like to reward my players for thinking off the tops of their heads rather than playing things solely by the rules as written, and it makes sense to me that a Barbarian with a giant maul can tear a giant hole in a structure of compacted dirt if he's not the one restrained by it. Now, if someone is still inside it, that would pose an issue, as I don't see a way to destabilize the construct sufficiently without smacking the person inside

your maul is causing far fewer structural problems than the fact that the hand can actually move around and grab people while being made of compressed dirt. if the hand can survive moving to the opposide side of its area and restraining all kinds of different shapes, which would inflict far greater damage than your hammer, it can also survive the hammer just fine.

[RickAllison]

your maul is causing far fewer structural problems than the fact that the hand can actually move around and grab people while being made of compressed dirt. if the hand can survive moving to the opposide side of its area and restraining all kinds of different shapes, which would inflict far greater damage than your hammer, it can also survive the hammer just fine.

But you're missing something: the caster has to activate that effect. Why? Because he has to reform the magic barrier compacting the dirt.

"As an action, you can cause the hand to crush the restrained target, who must make a Strength saving throw. It takes 2d6 bludgeoning damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
To break out, the restrained target can make a Strength check against your spell save DC. On a success, the target escapes and is no longer restrained by the hand.
As an action, you can cause the hand to reach for a different creature or to move to a different unoccupied space within range. The hand releases a restrained target if you do either."

Notice that both of the effects that change the form of the hand require an action. The mage is actively manipulating the magic field, which is why it doesn't collapse. Using the hammer disrupts the form while he is not actively manipulating the form and thus when it is locked in place. Think of snow compacted in a mold; if done correctly, it will keep the shape it is molded into. However, take a hammer through it to remove part of it, and the rest collapses as it doesn't have the force necessary to keep that form. From that, it makes sense that destabilizing part of it will force it to release someone through losing enough strength to keep the full hand, but still being able to grab someone again (with the reformed field). A fantastic hit would compromise the entire structure, not leaving enough to actually manipulate meaningfully.

[Dalebert]

I'd let someone attack the hand, I suppose, and temporarily destroy it, though I'd make it fairly tough. It can be reformed there or somewhere else with an action by the caster. I wouldn't let it dispel the magic. There are ways to do that already. It's already limited by concentration. I wouldn't stack more ways. It wouldn't be fair to the caster.

As for grappling someone and moving away, well yes, but that's a contested grapple because the hand is already doing the same thing and holding them in place. So basically that results in the same way to resolve--str roll against the DC of the spell since a contested grapple is str vs. str. It wouldn't let you ignore the str of the hand and use that of the grappled creature any more than you could ignore the str of another creature grappling that person and also controlling their location.

But now we digress from the topic.

[Tanarii]

But you're missing something: the caster has to activate that effect. Why? Because he has to reform the magic barrier compacting the dirt.That's interesting that you see the magic as a barrier containing the soil. I assume you see an attack against the hand as knocking the soil out of the constraining barrier? at which point gravity would take over and the soil would fall to the ground.

I was envisioning it as a cohesive force pulling the particles together into a compact form. And continuing to do so as the hand used to do it's thing. In which case, hitting the soil with a hammer would do no good at all, because the particles are just being pulled together again, far stronger than the force of the hammer or gravity.

IMO the way you're envisioning it would cause the hand to have an AC and Hps.

[SharkForce]

But you're missing something: the caster has to activate that effect. Why? Because he has to reform the magic barrier compacting the dirt.

"As an action, you can cause the hand to crush the restrained target, who must make a Strength saving throw. It takes 2d6 bludgeoning damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
To break out, the restrained target can make a Strength check against your spell save DC. On a success, the target escapes and is no longer restrained by the hand.
As an action, you can cause the hand to reach for a different creature or to move to a different unoccupied space within range. The hand releases a restrained target if you do either."

Notice that both of the effects that change the form of the hand require an action. The mage is actively manipulating the magic field, which is why it doesn't collapse. Using the hammer disrupts the form while he is not actively manipulating the form and thus when it is locked in place. Think of snow compacted in a mold; if done correctly, it will keep the shape it is molded into. However, take a hammer through it to remove part of it, and the rest collapses as it doesn't have the force necessary to keep that form. From that, it makes sense that destabilizing part of it will force it to release someone through losing enough strength to keep the full hand, but still being able to grab someone again (with the reformed field). A fantastic hit would compromise the entire structure, not leaving enough to actually manipulate meaningfully.

turns are an abstraction. there is no point at which the hand is completely immobile (it must be adjusting grip to do a decent job of holding you over the course of the turn), and there is no point at which the caster is not using the spell (even if they spend no action, again, the spell is using their proficiency bonus to grab the target, not its own like a bigby's hand spell, and it requires their concentration, so at no point is the caster not focusing their will on it to some extent, and the spell is always under the caster's control even if they are not spending actions to crush you to death).

if you want to end the spell's duration with a hammer, i recommend you hit the caster.

you want to break free? strength check, just like the spell says. you want to help someone else break free? help action already exists. we don't need to invent new options for doing what is already there in front of us.

[RickAllison]

turns are an abstraction. there is no point at which the hand is completely immobile (it must be adjusting grip to do a decent job of holding you over the course of the turn), and there is no point at which the caster is not using the spell (even if they spend no action, again, the spell is using their proficiency bonus to grab the target, not its own like a bigby's hand spell, and it requires their concentration, so at no point is the caster not focusing their will on it to some extent, and the spell is always under the caster's control even if they are not spending actions to crush you to death).

if you want to end the spell's duration with a hammer, i recommend you hit the caster.

you want to break free? strength check, just like the spell says. you want to help someone else break free? help action already exists. we don't need to invent new options for doing what is already there in front of us.

I don't mean to sound rude, but that seems like an awful way to play a tabletop game. The entire point of the DM is to create the world and adjudicate any disputes of the rules do to unforeseen circumstances. The rules are not comprehensive (this isn't GURPS) and saying that implementing creative ideas to solve problems shouldn't be permitted severely limits the abilities of players. What if the caster is obscured or otherwise beyond attacking, or that the MEG's target is needed to focus on a spell to banish the defenses of the boss? By your interpretation, there is nothing any martial players can do except take a help action every turn. Why shouldn't they figure out "new options for doing what is already there in front of us"? That's the entire point of games like D&D! If I wanted a game where I could only play within very strict rules, I'd plug in Skyrim.

As I said before, you are welcome to run your games as strict to the rules as you like as DM, but I prefer my PCs to actually use their brains rather than their PHBs. If they don't have the chance to figure out some creative way around the normal rules, it probably was not an interesting day.

[Tanarii]

As I said before, you are welcome to run your games as strict to the rules as you like as DM, but I prefer my PCs to actually use their brains rather than their PHBs. If they don't have the chance to figure out some creative way around the normal rules, it probably was not an interesting day.Why are you chosing to argue about how you would house-rule interactions with a spell in a thread about how things work under RAW? /confused

[SharkForce]

I don't mean to sound rude, but that seems like an awful way to play a tabletop game. The entire point of the DM is to create the world and adjudicate any disputes of the rules do to unforeseen circumstances. The rules are not comprehensive (this isn't GURPS) and saying that implementing creative ideas to solve problems shouldn't be permitted severely limits the abilities of players. What if the caster is obscured or otherwise beyond attacking, or that the MEG's target is needed to focus on a spell to banish the defenses of the boss? By your interpretation, there is nothing any martial players can do except take a help action every turn. Why shouldn't they figure out "new options for doing what is already there in front of us"? That's the entire point of games like D&D! If I wanted a game where I could only play within very strict rules, I'd plug in Skyrim.

As I said before, you are welcome to run your games as strict to the rules as you like as DM, but I prefer my PCs to actually use their brains rather than their PHBs. If they don't have the chance to figure out some creative way around the normal rules, it probably was not an interesting day.

"creative ideas"?

"i attack it" is practically the ANTITHESIS of that concept. there is nothing creative about what you're trying to do. it is literally a thing that roleplayers have been complaining is just about the least creative thing you could possibly do to solve a problem for decades. and you're seriously expecting that this extremely typical approach of people all over the world is "unforeseen"? well that's really odd, because as i've said repeatedly, the earlier version of the spell that they would have been using for reference all told you exactly what happens when you attack the hand (probably because they didn't have general rules for help actions that could easily cover the scenario), and WotC specifically decided *not* to include anything of the sort.

furthermore, they aren't trying to do something new. they're trying to escape the hand's grasp, or help someone else escape the hand's grasp. are there already rules for that? turns out there are. the rules are not comprehensive, but they DO cover the situation described already. and in all probability, considering that the new version specifically does not include AC or hit points like the spell did in previous editions, this particular action is very probably not so much "unforeseen" as it is "completely expected and fully capable of being resolved with the existing rules without needing to add yet another set of numbers to track".

seriously, though. your argument for why "i attack it" should be awarded with super-effectiveness is that it's supposed to be a *creative* solution?

[RickAllison]

Why are you chosing to argue about how you would house-rule interactions with a spell in a thread about how things work under RAW? /confused

Honestly, MEG has put this thread on a tangent that should be abandoned. We are no longer even discussing the spell in a context pertinent to the original question, which is why we are discussing this rule interaction. As for my thoughts on the ruling, it's not really a house-rule, it just has nothing defined for it in the book itself. House-ruling would be codifying it into my games, whereas this is just clarifying a a possible interaction that has no rules in the book. MEG never defines what happens when it is attacked, and so there are no rules able to be changed. Thus, it's adjudication, like deciding what the effect of a falling chandelier would be besides fall damage.

Returning to the actual point of this thread, MEG is probably not twin-able by RAW because the target referred to in the spell is of the effect rather than the spell itself. Via Rule of Cool, a caster might still be allowed to do it, but THAT would be a house-rule.

[Tanarii]

As for my thoughts on the ruling, it's not really a house-rule, it just has nothing defined for it in the book itself. House-ruling would be codifying it into my games, whereas this is just clarifying a a possible interaction that has no rules in the book. MEG never defines what happens when it is attacked, and so there are no rules able to be changed. Thus, it's adjudication, like deciding what the effect of a falling chandelier would be besides fall damage.the part I quoted was specifically about players looking for ways around the 'normal rules'. That's house-ruling.

[RickAllison]

the part I quoted was specifically about players looking for ways around the 'normal rules'. That's house-ruling.

Eh, if the players think it up and can rationalize why it should work, why not? Maybe they spray the hand with the Decanter of Endless Water (AFB, so I don't know if that's the right name), or they use Disintegrate, or any number of solutions they might come up with. If it's house-ruling to let them try reasonable courses of action, then let there be house-rules, it makes the game more fun for everyone.

Admittedly, I like the image of a barbarian continually smashing apart the hand, only to have the hand reform and grab him the next turn. It would be very entertaining.