Can you twin the spell ice knife

[Sir cryosin]

As it ask up there and if so do you get two AoE from its second effect?

[PeteNutButter]

According to sage advice, yes and yes.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Why not? The spell targets one creature (the AoE is a rider). You just fire two knives at two different targets.

[ryan92084]

The ruling at my table is no atm just like Green Flame Blade (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/10/can-you-us-twinned-spell-with-green-flame-blade/)which also only "targets" for the primary effect (the secondary effect uses different verbiage (http://shaneplays.com/wp-content/gallery/dd-5th-edition-sword-coast-adventurers-guide/DD_Sword_Coast_Adventurers_Guide_nothern_green_fla me_blade_cantrip.png)). Until something better comes out my test is "can this hit more than one creature?" and if so then it isn't able to be twinned. That said I'm only 51% confident in that ruling since Ice knife is a bit of a special flower by being an AoE that targets a creature instead of a space.

According to sage advice, yes and yes.
AFAIK neither sage advice (http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/SA_Compendium.pdf)nor JC (he's been asked twice) has addressed this topic and there is only a Mearls tweet (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/07/01/twin-splash-dd-errata/). Mearls' tweets are his personal answers and the sageadvice.eu website is a helpful third party that compiles various DnD sources but it itself is not the official sage advice.

[Serket]

RAW, yes.

But, RAW is for WH40K players. You have a GM, and part of their job is rulings on stuff like this.

If it were me, I'd rule no. Because seriously, doubling AOEs is not what twinned spell is for.

[Talamare]

No, allowing this feels like its opening a can of worms

[Zalabim]

It's probably important to point out that due to the rules on stacking spell effects, any overlapping areas of effect from a hypothetical twinned Ice Knife would not deal any additional damage beyond the normal.

[coredump]

According to sage advice, yes and yes.

Links??

Too short

[RickAllison]

Until something better comes out my test is "can this hit more than one creature?" and if so then it isn't able to be twinned. That said I'm only 51% confident in that ruling since Ice knife is a bit of a special flower by being an AoE that targets a creature instead of a space..

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the acid cantrip kind of similar to that? Where it has an AoE but targets a creature, or am I misremembering?

[Joe the Rat]

Where it qualifies is in the initial attack roll (targeting a single creature).
Where it fails is that the AoE feature always triggers (regardless of hit or miss). So conceptually, it's an exploding ice shard. Mechanically, it's an AoE that can do extra damage to its point of origin.

Contrast with the effect from Hail of Thorns, which only creates the AoE on a successful hit. If Ice Knife had the AoE as a rider on a hit, i'd say it's a valid read. And a valid build for a custom spell.

[ryan92084]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the acid cantrip kind of similar to that? Where it has an AoE but targets a creature, or am I misremembering?

Acid splash? "Choose one creature within range, or choose two creatures within range that are within 5 feet of each other. A target must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d6 acid damage." [Basic rules] I'd say it can't be twinned at all per the errata (http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/Errata_PH.pdf).

Side note: I forgot there are also the AoE spells that originate from the caster but they also don't have a "target" creature.

[RickAllison]

Acid splash? "Choose one creature within range, or choose two creatures within range that are within 5 feet of each other. A target must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d6 acid damage." [Basic rules] I'd say it can't be twinned at all per the errata (http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/Errata_PH.pdf).

Side note: I forgot there are also the AoE spells that originate from the caster but they also don't have a "target" creature.

Ahhhhh, I was mis-remembering the wording. No, that wording does not seem eligible for Twinned Spell at all.

[McNinja]

The ruling at my table is no atm just like Green Flame Blade (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/10/can-you-us-twinned-spell-with-green-flame-blade/)which also only "targets" for the primary effect (the secondary effect uses different verbiage (http://shaneplays.com/wp-content/gallery/dd-5th-edition-sword-coast-adventurers-guide/DD_Sword_Coast_Adventurers_Guide_nothern_green_fla me_blade_cantrip.png)). Until something better comes out my test is "can this hit more than one creature?" and if so then it isn't able to be twinned. That said I'm only 51% confident in that ruling since Ice knife is a bit of a special flower by being an AoE that targets a creature instead of a space.

AFAIK neither sage advice (http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/SA_Compendium.pdf)nor JC (he's been asked twice) has addressed this topic and there is only a Mearls tweet (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/07/01/twin-splash-dd-errata/). Mearls' tweets are his personal answers and the sageadvice.eu website is a helpful third party that compiles various DnD sources but it itself is not the official sage advice.
Your ruling is not backed up by what the book says, though. The wording for Twinned spell is
"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)."

How many creatures are targeted by ice knife? 1. Just because it hits more than one thing doesn't change the fact that you're only targeting one creature. With GFB you are clearly targeting two separate creatures, there is no such thing in the ice knife spell.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

It's probably important to point out that due to the rules on stacking spell effects, any overlapping areas of effect from a hypothetical twinned Ice Knife would not deal any additional damage beyond the normal.

So the illustrative case would be a spell like meteor swarm?

I'm curious though, how many saves would the effected creature make? Would there be disadvantage applied to the save? How many damage rolls are made? Which one applies?

[ryan92084]

Your ruling is not backed up by what the book says, though. The wording for Twinned spell is
"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)."

How many creatures are targeted by ice knife? 1. Just because it hits more than one thing doesn't change the fact that you're only targeting one creature. With GFB you are clearly targeting two separate creatures, there is no such thing in the ice knife spell.
As pointed out GFB doesn't use the verbiage "Target" for the secondary effect. While there is more caster agency involved (as you choose the secondary affected creature) it still doesn't explicitly have multiple targets.

What can this mean? Potentially that isn't the exact word "target" in the spell description that matters but number of creatures potentially creatures effected by a spell are all targets in a plain English sort of way. Without further dev clarification or a change in the language/ruling for GFB I find no reason to alter my ruling at this time.

It isn't particularly germane to this discussion but that is the outdated text for twinned spell. It should now also include the errata "To be eligible for Twinned Spell, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level."

[McNinja]

As pointed out GFB doesn't use the verbiage "Target" for the secondary effect. While there is more caster agency involved (as you choose the secondary affected creature) it still doesn't explicitly have multiple targets.

What can this mean? Potentially that isn't the exact word "target" in the spell description that matters but number of creatures potentially creatures effected by a spell are all targets in a plain English sort of way. Without further dev clarification or a change in the language/ruling for GFB I find no reason to alter my ruling at this time.

It isn't particularly germane to this discussion but that is the outdated text for twinned spell. It should now also include the errata "To be eligible for Twinned Spell, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level."Except GFB forces you to specify a second creature for the damage. Ice Knife doesn't. GFB isn't an indiscriminate AoE effect, you are literally targeting a second creature.

[PeteNutButter]

Links??

Too short

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/07/01/twin-splash-dd-errata/

There's your link. Sorry I was too lazy too google it before.

The funny thing is the ruling there is clear that GFB would also work, but there is another ruling which directly says it can't... Needless to say sage advice is often flawed, and your DM may ignore it.

[ryan92084]

Except GFB forces you to specify a second creature for the damage. Ice Knife doesn't. GFB isn't an indiscriminate AoE effect, you are literally targeting a second creature.

You have three options
1) Strict RaW: Both GFB and Ice knife can be twinned because there is only one explicit "target".
2) Split the difference: Directed splash is a no go while undirected/omnidirectional splash is fine
3) Target can mean effected: Neither GFB nor Ice Knife can be twinned

Depending on one's penchant for strict RaW versus plain english readings 1&3 seem equally viable. However, RaI only allows for 2&3. I'm sticking with 3 since it currently agrees with both.


http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/07/01/twin-splash-dd-errata/

There's your link. Sorry I was too lazy too google it before.

The funny thing is the ruling there is clear that GFB would also work, but there is another ruling which directly says it can't... Needless to say sage advice is often flawed, and your DM may ignore it.
As I said in my previous post that isn't the official sage advice its just mearl's personal tweet for "advice" on a third party website.

[PeteNutButter]

As I said in my previous post that isn't the official sage advice its just mearl's personal tweet for "advice" on a third party website.

True. I would rule with option 1 though, just due to experience with other games like MtG, where if a spell says target it targets, if it says choose or anything else, it doesn't target. Plus it's RAF, not really breaking the game.

[Zalabim]

So the illustrative case would be a spell like meteor swarm?

I'm curious though, how many saves would the effected creature make? Would there be disadvantage applied to the save? How many damage rolls are made? Which one applies?

I think the spell probably uses the same damage rolls for both targets and both aoes anyway, but if you did decide to roll them separately it would save once and take the higher damage value of the two areas.

[RaynorReynolds]

Except GFB forces you to specify a second creature for the damage. Ice Knife doesn't. GFB isn't an indiscriminate AoE effect, you are literally targeting a second creature.

Except you arent "literally" targeting the second creature. You are choosing it.

[Lines]

Except you arent "literally" targeting the second creature. You are choosing it.

Right, you're choosing it to be the focus of the effect. If only there were a 6 letter word for that.




Like, say, target.

[PeteNutButter]

The sage tweet says: "splash damage is OK - spell should specify targeting in its text." emphasis mine.

So GFB is legit from his point of view.

[ryan92084]

True. I would rule with option 1 though, just due to experience with other games like MtG, where if a spell says target it targets, if it says choose or anything else, it doesn't target. Plus it's RAF, not really breaking the game.

Option 1 imo is a completely legit RaW reading and much more consistent than option 2. My sorcerer player would love you for it too :smallbiggrin:


The sage tweet says: "splash damage is OK - spell should specify targeting in its text." emphasis mine.

So GFB is legit from his point of view.

Mearls is not the Sage only J Crawford is. As I linked up thread JC has already ruled GFB is not able to be twinned and this is why Mearls' tweets are pretty useless when discussing rules.

For redundancy's sake http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/10/can-you-us-twinned-spell-with-green-flame-blade/

[RaynorReynolds]

Right, you're choosing it to be the focus of the effect. If only there were a 6 letter word for that.

If only they used that six letter word....

Regardless, I would allow it in my game.