Golden Sorcerouge

[Easy_Lee]

Yep, it's that time again. Easy Lee is making up some goofy build. Back the flumph up and watch this.

The concept is simple: combine rogue and sorcerer to make a silly build. Here's what we're gonna do:

Golden Sorcerouge
Vhuman rogue with Spell Sniper.
Use Spell Sniper to pick up Green-flame Blade from the sorcerer spell list.
Claim you've always had an affinity for golden dragons and magic.
Target starting stats: 16+Dex, 16+Cha.
Weapon of choice: Whip.
End goal: rogue 2 / draconic sorcerer 18
1-2: Rogue, choose expertise in whichever skills desired
3: Sorcerer, Draconic Origin: Gold
5: Twin + Quicken
6+: ASIs go to DEX and CHA.

You may be wondering why we took Spell Sniper with Green-flame Blade. Well, let me explain. Green-flame Blade has a range of 5', and its secondary effect hits someone within 5' as well. It requires us to make an attack roll. Spell Sniper doubles the range of spells which require us to make an attack roll. That means we can use our whip to Green-flame Blade at 10' reach, so we stay at a safe distance. We can do this from level 1.

At level 3, we shed our armor and walk around all gold and such. That ought to improve our stealth checks.

Starting at level 4, we gain sorcery points. By 5, we can use those points to Green-flame Blade-Whip two opponents in one go by twinning the spell. This works since the spell requires a melee attack which only targets one creature. Its secondary effect is splash damage (unavoidable splash damage, too). That's 1d4 + DEX + 1d8 to two targets, and an additional 1d8 + CHA to two targets next to them. Pretty nice for level 5, especially since we might get SA. If the targets happen to be adjacent, then each or them takes one full GFB + splash, which is quite effective.

At level 8, we add CHA to fire spell damage. This should include both the main target damage and the splash damage of Green-flame Blade, using other multi-target spells as an example, but ask your DM. So now Green-flame Blade deals up to 1d4 + 1d6 + 1d8 + DEX + CHA to the main target, and 1d8 + 2*CHA to the splash target.

Combine all of that with quicken spell if you miss or want to cast something else, cunning action, and all of the perks that come with being a dragon sorcerer, and you've got a pretty sweet character. Take flight and attack from a safe distance, dashing and disengaging via cunning action to avoid retribution. Toss rays with spell sniper and you'll slay from far away. Pick up some cold and thundering spells for targets resistant to fire, and you're set.

By CLevel 17, for the cost of one sorcery point and given two adjacent targets, each takes 1d4+6d8+5+10=44.5 damage. That's just shy of 90 damage total, and we can follow it up with a bonus action spell, such as a fireball.

Besides the fact that we're a golden dragon sorcerer swinging a green fire whip. If that's not d&d, then I don't know what is.

Variants:
13 or 14 rogue for more sneak attack, an archetype, and equal GFB damage.
Ditch the whip and spell sniper, take war caster at level 1 and do a GFB when targets flee. Works well with more rogue, especially AT for spell slot progression (better fireballs, more spell points).

[Corran]

I always had BB in mind when thinking of sorcerogues. And even in this case, there still might be situations when it could prove useful. However, I uderstand why we would want to stick with GFB regarding this character, so that we can keep on check with the theme. I have to say, a very beautiful idea!

[Easy_Lee]

Wait, I don't think rogues are proficient with whips. Could have sworn they were. Flumph. Add a level of of fighter for the fighting style to the above, and take 17 levels of sorcerer instead of 18. Otherwise, clear this up with the DM.

By my analysis, whips are underpowered as a martial weapon, anyway, and should have been simple.

[ClintACK]

What if you take two levels of Fighter? How does Action Surge synergize here?

Can you do a quickened spell + twinned-GB + Action Surge: twinned-GB?

[Easy_Lee]

What if you take two levels of Fighter? How does Action Surge synergize here?

Can you do a quickened spell + twinned-GB + Action Surge: twinned-GB?

Yep, you can do that. Can also go EK / Evoker Wizard for that setup and do action surge spell + GFB + bonus attack, although you don't get the added INT until wizard 10.

[Corran]

What if you take two levels of Fighter? How does Action Surge synergize here?

Can you do a quickened spell + twinned-GB + Action Surge: twinned-GB?
Meh, at the cost of 9th level spells and of slower spell progression, I dont think it is worth it.

[GlenSmash!]

Whip as a martial weapon never made sense to me. What army or militia is training it's recruits in the use of the whip? I get that using a whip in combat would take a lot of training. I just don't see how a fighter/ranger/barbarian would have that training any more than a rogue.

I think it belongs on the Rogue weapon list at least as much as the longsword does.

[jaappleton]

I believe Twinned spell requires that the spell only have one target. I don't think the secondary rider effect of GFB allows the spell to qualify.

[RulesJD]

*snip*

By 5, we can use those points to Green-flame Blade-Whip two opponents in one go by twinning the spell. This works since the spell requires a melee attack which only targets one creature. Its secondary effect is splash damage (unavoidable splash damage, too).

*snip*

You can't Twin GFB, so unfortunately this won't work.

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

[Easy_Lee]

You can't Twin GFB, so unfortunately this won't work.

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

I see that he uses a very loose definition of "target." I don't doubt that this entire build is unintended, if for not reason other than WotC didn't think of it. They've been acting very much like Blizzard of late, in that regard.

However, according to my reading, the spell only targets one creature. This is because the spell makes one single attack, and the second creature doesn't even get a save. Surprise surprise, I disagree with Crawford. An as you all know, a ruling being "official" doesn't actually matter.

[BiPolar]

I see that he uses a very loose definition of "target." I don't doubt that this entire build is unintended, if for not reason other than WotC didn't think of it. They've been acting very much like Blizzard of late, in that regard.

However, according to my reading, the spell only targets one creature. This is because the spell makes one single attack, and the second creature doesn't even get a save. Surprise surprise, I disagree with Crawford. An as you all know, a ruling being "official" doesn't actually matter.

IT's a good question as to whether or not "target" for Twin spell includes a secondary effect, but even without crawford's ruling GFB does affect two separate targets. There really isn't a way around that. Yes, there's your primary target, but the secondary target absolutely exists.

I don't think this is really a case of a "loose definition". Booming Blade would work, though.

[Easy_Lee]

IT's a good question as to whether or not "target" for Twin spell includes a secondary effect, but even without crawford's ruling GFB does affect two separate targets. There really isn't a way around that. Yes, there's your primary target, but the secondary target absolutely exists.

I don't think this is really a case of a "loose definition". Booming Blade would work, though.

Well, rogues already can't use whips, so the build needs DM fiat anyway. Fact is that the book doesn't explain what's meant by "target." Targets and Affects are two different things, in my opinion.

The book also doesn't explain why only certain kinds of spells can be twinned. Because balance? All spells of a given level should be equally useful, assuming the designers did a good job.

I'll leave it up to individual DMs to decide what to do.

[BiPolar]

Well, rogues already can't use whips, so the build needs DM fiat anyway. Fact is that the book doesn't explain what's meant by "target." Targets and Affects are two different things, in my opinion.

The book also doesn't explain why only certain kinds of spells can be twinned. Because balance? All spells of a given level should be equally useful, assuming the designers did a good job.

I'll leave it up to individual DMs to decide what to do.

I'd assume they only want single target spells available for twinning otherwise you can greatly increase the amount of people a twinned spell can affect. Twinning basically just allows for the use of sorcery points to make a single target spell a double. If you allow spells with that affect more than one target to twin, then it becomes vastly more powerful. The equivalent are the spells that allow an increase of a level to affect more people (spell slot increase vs sorcery point usage.)

One idea for a DM allowing this build would be to increase the sorcery points used for twinning things like GFB (since it affects an additional target, double the sorcery point cost.)

[Easy_Lee]

I'd assume they only want single target spells available for twinning otherwise you can greatly increase the amount of people a twinned spell can affect. Twinning basically just allows for the use of sorcery points to make a single target spell a double. If you allow spells with that affect more than one target to twin, then it becomes vastly more powerful. The equivalent are the spells that allow an increase of a level to affect more people (spell slot increase vs sorcery point usage.)

One idea for a DM allowing this build would be to increase the sorcery points used for twinning things like GFB (since it affects an additional target, double the sorcery point cost.)

How does twinning become vastly more powerful for allowing different kinds of spells? It becomes more varied, not more powerful, as all spells of a given level are equally useful.

As for your second suggestion, it's awful. The inherent suggestion is that spells with multiple targets are inherently better than spells without. If that's the case, why take a spell which can be twinned at all?

Things like this are exactly why people thinks sorcerers are too weak. Too many limitations.

[BiPolar]

How does twinning become vastly more powerful for allowing different kinds of spells? It becomes more varied, not more powerful, as all spells of a given level are equally useful.

As for your second suggestion, it's awful. The inherent suggestion is that spells with multiple targets are inherently better than spells without. If that's the case, why take a spell which can be twinned at all?

Things like this are exactly why people thinks sorcerers are too weak. Too many limitations.

It's not the power increase being an issue based on different KINDS of spells. It's spells that have an impact on more than one target. It can be whatever kind of spell you want as long as it's not more than one person.

If you allow a spell that can affect more than one person to be twinned, then you are absolutely increasing the damage delivered by that spell, which it appears was not the intent. You can read it two ways: Twinned Spells takes a single spell and lets you cast it twice. The other is Twinned Spells let you take a spell with a single target and let's you hit two. It's the latter that seems to be the intent and adding additional targets multiplies the effect of twinning beyond what the intention was.

And thanks for the great response to my suggestion. Super helpful and friendly.

As for single target vs multiple target spells, they often have different effects. Fireball delivers much more damage than Scorching Ray as a third level spell. But maybe you don't want to a Dex Save spell but do want an attack spell. It's about utility.

And finally, twinning isn't just for offensive. Twinned Blur, Haste, gaseous form, dispel magic, etc. are incredible for buffing your party.

[RulesJD]

I see that he uses a very loose definition of "target." I don't doubt that this entire build is unintended, if for not reason other than WotC didn't think of it. They've been acting very much like Blizzard of late, in that regard.

However, according to my reading, the spell only targets one creature. This is because the spell makes one single attack, and the second creature doesn't even get a save. Surprise surprise, I disagree with Crawford. An as you all know, a ruling being "official" doesn't actually matter.

It does for proposed builds, because it's RAW and RAI.

You're welcome to treat it that way at a table, but you're also free to give Bard's 10,000hp to start with and all Half-Orcs can fly.

Doesn't mean it matters for build ideas.

[RulesJD]

And finally, twinning isn't just for offensive. Twinned Blur, Haste, gaseous form, dispel magic, etc. are incredible for buffing your party.

Agreed, but you can't Twin blur. It has a range of Self so it isn't a Twinnable spell.

[Easy_Lee]

It's not the power increase being an issue based on different KINDS of spells. It's spells that have an impact on more than one target. It can be whatever kind of spell you want as long as it's not more than one person.

If you allow a spell that can affect more than one person to be twinned, then you are absolutely increasing the damage delivered by that spell, which it appears was not the intent. You can read it two ways: Twinned Spells takes a single spell and lets you cast it twice. The other is Twinned Spells let you take a spell with a single target and let's you hit two. It's the latter that seems to be the intent and adding additional targets multiplies the effect of twinning beyond what the intention was.

And thanks for the great response to my suggestion. Super helpful and friendly.

As for single target vs multiple target spells, they often have different effects. Fireball delivers much more damage than Scorching Ray as a third level spell. But maybe you don't want to a Dex Save spell but do want an attack spell. It's about utility.

And finally, twinning isn't just for offensive. Twinned Blur, Haste, gaseous form, dispel magic, etc. are incredible for buffing your party.

Twinning buffs is the only useful way to use twin at all, as confirmed by sorcerer threads. The best thing a sorcerer can do is twin haste, take two levels of warlock, then stand way back and carefully chuck quickened EB.

I get their intent. They didn't want sorcerers to throw two fireballs per round, because they were afraid that'd be too much damage. As a result, EK - Evokers were born, using action surge to do what the sorcerer can't.

More loosely, WotC was afraid of metamagic. Due to the ray casters and cheese such as Locate City Bomb back in 3.5, WotC wanted to be sure that no metamagic tricks existed. Thus all of the limitations, including the inability to use more than one metamagic on the same spell.

It's all foolish. With so many limitations, sorcerers have very limited usefulness. They're one of the most house-ruled classes, and of the casters, sorcerers have the most critics. Many feel the sorcerer is too weak compared with a cleric, wizard, or druid. There's a reason for that. Rulings like the above, preventing spells with splash damage from being twinned even though they only have one target, are part of that reason.

So no, I reject the idea that following intent is the best way to handle sorcerers. As I've said, individual DMs may do as they see fit.

[BiPolar]

Agreed, but you can't Twin blur. It has a range of Self so it isn't a Twinnable spell.

Ah, missed that. But the general point still stands that single target spells are still great with Twin (especially for buffing).

My hunch is that they made it single target so that you can't twin an AoE spell because they didn't want an overreach of damage for the cost. Twinning basically lets you cast a spell twice. Anything that affects more than one creature provides a much greater delivery based on the same cost (although GFB doesn't compare to AoE, but it falls under it's umbrella because it's still more than just a second target, it's now 4 targets.)

[BiPolar]

Twinning buffs is the only useful way to use twin at all, as confirmed by sorcerer threads. The best thing a sorcerer can do is twin haste, take two levels of warlock, then stand way back and carefully chuck quickened EB.

I get their intent. They didn't want sorcerers to throw two fireballs per round, because they were afraid that'd be too much damage. As a result, EK - Evokers were born, using action surge to do what the sorcerer can't.

More loosely, WotC was afraid of metamagic. Due to the ray casters and cheese such as Locate City Bomb back in 3.5, WotC wanted to be sure that no metamagic tricks existed. Thus all of the limitations, including the inability to use more than one metamagic on the same spell.

It's all foolish. With so many limitations, sorcerers have very limited usefulness. They're one of the most house-ruled classes, and of the casters, sorcerers have the most critics. Many feel the sorcerer is too weak compared with a cleric, wizard, or druid. There's a reason for that. Rulings like the above, preventing spells with splash damage from being twinned even though they only have one target, are part of that reason.

So no, I reject the idea that following intent is the best way to handle sorcerers. As I've said, individual DMs may do as they see fit.

It's foolish in your opinion. And it's a totally fair opinion. Yes, Sorcerers do seem to have limlitations, but I think the limiltations are there to counter their meta magic. You don't agree with how they balanced it (and many others don't, to) and that leaves you free to houserule changes you like.

But to base your build on a houserule is a bit disingenuous. Or at least give a caveat emptor at the beginning that the build requires houserules.

[RickAllison]

Twinned Ice Knife is a great combination, though. It targets a single creature and just has an AoE that triggers afterward. Definitely fits the criteria for Twin, while also having a secondary effect to hit more people.

[Easy_Lee]

But to base your build on a houserule is a bit disingenuous. Or at least give a caveat emptor at the beginning that the build requires houserules.

So wait, I missed the whip thing, but you're more upset that I didn't include Crawford's questionable ruling? This edition is all about rulings over rules, and DM fiat. Crawford's ruling is no more valid than anyone else's.

And furthermore, I don't think many people actually care what Crawford thinks. His rulings are used solely to attack others' posts, nothing else.

[Corran]

It would be a poor choice to turn this tread into an argument about whether twin spell works with GFB, at least imo. It is clear that the build relies a lot in this (powerwise, cause the flavour is good either way), so I think it suffices to say that at tables where twinning GFB does not work (like how my group does it), one would have to secondguess his decision playing this build if mechanics are so important to him.

Regarding the whip (had forgotten that rogues dont get one too), I would suggest picking proficiency with it from your background (like instead of a tool proficiency gain whip proficiency). That ofc means that the DM approves of the background you created, but personally I dont see any reason not to allow sth like that. Perhaps go for a background that makes sense using a whip as a tool/weapon, such as sth that has to do with animal taming/training, or..... dominatrix.:smalltongue:

[BiPolar]

So wait, I missed the whip thing, but you're more upset that I didn't include Crawford's questionable ruling? This edition is all about rulings over rules, and DM fiat. Crawford's ruling is no more valid than anyone else's.

And furthermore, I don't think many people actually care what Crawford thinks. His rulings are used solely to attack others' posts, nothing else.

No, I'm not "more upset". But you have a build now that relies completely on houseruling for the whip and the twinned spell for GFB. Crawford's ruling as 'questionnable" is just an issue you currently have because it doesn't fit your narrative. GFB inherently affects more than one creature (as does ice knife, making that no-no for twinning as well)

As a DM you are free overrule and run how you see fit, but by the existing rules it's a clear no. It's a very cool build and sharing it here is perfectly reasonable, but I do think it's fair and reasonable that in order for anyone here to use it, they will have to ask their DM to waive these rules in favor of your rulings that allow the build.

[Easy_Lee]

No, I'm not "more upset". But you have a build now that relies completely on houseruling for the whip and the twinned spell for GFB. Crawford's ruling as 'questionnable" is just an issue you currently have because it doesn't fit your narrative. GFB inherently affects more than one creature (as does ice knife, making that no-no for twinning as well)

As a DM you are free overrule and run how you see fit, but by the existing rules it's a clear no. It's a very cool build and sharing it here is perfectly reasonable, but I do think it's fair and reasonable that in order for anyone here to use it, they will have to ask their DM to waive these rules in favor of your rulings that allow the build.

Every build requires rulings to work. House rulings don't exist, as you put it. Crawford's rulings are not rules, they are advice, by his own admission. A different ruling is not a house ruling, it's just a ruling.

You just proved my point. Thank you for so aptly demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about.

[BiPolar]

Every build requires rulings to work. House rulings don't exist, as you put it. Crawford's rulings are not rules, they are advice, by his own admission. A different ruling is not a house ruling, it's just a ruling.

You just proved my point. Thank you for so aptly demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about.

I don't believe I "Proved your point" but if you want to read it that way, go for it. You obviously a single solution you want and are not willing to consider that you're wrong.

I provided very strong reasoning supported by the existing language (even if you ignore Crawford's ruling, which is based on that language) as to why your interpretations are not applicable and you have responded purely with your own opinion. That isn't to minimize your opinion, but it lands you squarely in houserule territory. When builds are generally presented here as viable options, they are designed to work within the rules and not require houserules to work. If they do require, then that's fine, but should be stated as such. THat's all I'm saying.

Can you provide support for your argument that a spell that affects more than one target via a rider is exempt from the Twinned Spells single target clause? To help, I think you're saying that the INITIAL target is the only one that Twinned is reliant upon. However, that is ignoring the remainder of the spell description. Are there other in-system rules that act this way?

[Easy_Lee]

I don't believe I "Proved your point" but if you want to read it that way, go for it. You obviously a single solution you want and are not willing to consider that you're wrong.

You missed my point. Consider the phrase "Rulings, Not Rules." It means wrong doesn't exist. You aren't wrong to follow Crawford's rulings to a T. However, that doesn't make you any more right than anyone else. Your play style is no better than anyone else's, nor will it ever be superior in any way.

I established what the ruling needs to be for this to work in the OP. You seem to take issue with the fact that I didn't say, "this is a ruling." It would be redundant to have said that, because everything in 5e is a ruling.

The second that you claim another poster's ruling is wrong or a house ruling because Crawford is the second when you go against one of the most basic tenets of 5e. Make Rulings, Not Rules, and remember that this is an open game that we're talking about.

[Joe the Rat]

Twinned Ice Knife is a great combination, though. It targets a single creature and just has an AoE that triggers afterward. Definitely fits the criteria for Twin, while also having a secondary effect to hit more people.

If Ice Knife is fair, then Green Flame Blade should be as well. And Hail of Thorns for the one Rangerer (Sorcerger?) player in the world. All fair or all foul for secondary splash damage.

[Goodberry]

Is no one else going to point out the fact that Spell Sniper requires that you can already cast a spell to take it?

[Easy_Lee]

Is no one else going to point out the fact that Spell Sniper requires that you can already cast a spell to take it?

Must have missed that requirement. Either way, just take sorcerer at 1 and then take rogue. That nets you con prof, anyway.

[SharkForce]

honestly, i'm not even sure what the point of this build is. nothing about rogue has supreme synergy with whips. especially when it's just a 2-level dip. and why does the sorcerer need expertise anyways? i mean, obviously *anyone* can benefit from expertise, but the sorcerer can also benefit greatly from not being 2 full spell levels behind on spellcasting.

the iron scoundrel is an interesting build because expertise + shove + decent strength is a powerful way of gaining advantage on your attacks, and the build lets you shove as a bonus action, and fighter + rogue has synergy already anyways.

this is ok, i guess. but it isn't really massively synergistic.

(on the GFB-twin issue, i would say the ruling on twin is at least partly intended to make it so you can't twin a spell and hit the same target twice, so i would say no to GFB).

but seriously, i'm not seeing the synergy here. this isn't really all that new and exciting. it doesn't make your sorcerer dramatically better at melee for having the rogue dip. i suppose a 3-level sorcerer dip could be an interesting possibility for a rogue to get metamagic. even then, i can't say i'd feel *that* excited about it.

[BiPolar]

You missed my point. Consider the phrase "Rulings, Not Rules." It means wrong doesn't exist. You aren't wrong to follow Crawford's rulings to a T. However, that doesn't make you any more right than anyone else. Your play style is no better than anyone else's, nor will it ever be superior in any way.

I established what the ruling needs to be for this to work in the OP. You seem to take issue with the fact that I didn't say, "this is a ruling." It would be redundant to have said that, because everything in 5e is a ruling.

The second that you claim another poster's ruling is wrong or a house ruling because Crawford is the second when you go against one of the most basic tenets of 5e. Make Rulings, Not Rules, and remember that this is an open game that we're talking about.

Okay. If we're going with any rule is up for grabs, then yes, any rule is up for grabs at any time.

Personally, I like to work in a system where all parties are in agreement. For me, that starts with the rules as written and then having my table agree to any changes to that.

If you want to start with nothing is actually a rule, then go for it.

[RulesJD]

You missed my point. Consider the phrase "Rulings, Not Rules." It means wrong doesn't exist. You aren't wrong to follow Crawford's rulings to a T. However, that doesn't make you any more right than anyone else. Your play style is no better than anyone else's, nor will it ever be superior in any way.

I established what the ruling needs to be for this to work in the OP. You seem to take issue with the fact that I didn't say, "this is a ruling." It would be redundant to have said that, because everything in 5e is a ruling.

The second that you claim another poster's ruling is wrong or a house ruling because Crawford is the second when you go against one of the most basic tenets of 5e. Make Rulings, Not Rules, and remember that this is an open game that we're talking about.

Yes, and the ruling is that GFB is not Twinnable.

You can either admit you're wrong, or that you're using a houserule. Either is fine.

[Easy_Lee]

Yes, and the ruling is that GFB is not Twinnable.

You can either admit you're wrong, or that you're using a houserule. Either is fine.

Rulings are not wrong, and house rulings don't exist. I'm arguing that every ruling is valid. Even Crawford himself has indicated that his rulings are meant as advice, not as rules.

Why do you continue to say my ruling is wrong? It's a ruling, not a rule, and there is no such thing as a house ruling because all rulings are valid.

You're arguing that Crawford's Rulings Matter. I'm arguing that All Rulings Matter.

[Corran]

honestly, i'm not even sure what the point of this build is. nothing about rogue has supreme synergy with whips. especially when it's just a 2-level dip. and why does the sorcerer need expertise anyways? i mean, obviously *anyone* can benefit from expertise, but the sorcerer can also benefit greatly from not being 2 full spell levels behind on spellcasting.

I think it's for cunning action. Being so close to the enemies (10ft) wont be safe for this character (given his many sorcerer levels and his mediocre con -since all bumps will go to dexterity and charisma). So cunning action would be useful for disengaging when enemies close in on you or for dashing, so that you can always keep a safer distance after hitting an enemy (with a 30ft speed he can always start his turn as far as 40ft from an enemy, then use his move to close in on 10ft, attack with the whip, and the use dash with cunning action to go back to where you were, that is 40ft away from the enemy). Granted he could have done it with mobile, but this way he wouldnt be able to max both charisma and dexterity and take spell sniper. That is the reason for vhuman too I suspect. Ofc this way he delays his spell progression (which is worse than being behind one ASI imo, assuming he went full sorcerer and with mobile), but he would hinder by a little his fire damage from twinnable GFB, and I think this is the aspect that he optimized around. Dealing as much fire damage as possible on a round-to-round basis. The whip just adds to the flavour, cause nothing beats a flaming whip (a la Balrog).

[Easy_Lee]

I think it's for cunning action. Being so close to the enemies (10ft) wont be safe for this character (given his many sorcerer levels and his mediocre con -since all bumps will go to dexterity and charisma). So cunning action would be useful for disengaging when enemies close in on you or for dashing, so that you can always keep a safer distance after hitting an enemy (with a 30ft speed he can always start his turn as far as 40ft from an enemy, then use his move to close in on 10ft, attack with the whip, and the use dash with cunning action to go back to where you were, that is 40ft away from the enemy). Granted he could have done it with mobile, but this way he wouldnt be able to max both charisma and dexterity and take spell sniper. That is the reason for vhuman too I suspect. Ofc this way he delays his spell progression (which is worse than being behind one ASI imo, assuming he went full sorcerer and with mobile), but he would hinder by a little his fire damage from twinnable GFB, and I think this is the aspect that he optimized around. Dealing as much fire damage as possible on a round-to-round basis. The whip just adds to the flavour, cause nothing beats a flaming whip (a la Balrog).

Basically this. Being a flighty blaster fits the sorcerer play style well. I just noticed a pretty way to do it.

Question: say you take three levels of rogue for assassin. Does GFB crit?

[RickAllison]

If Ice Knife is fair, then Green Flame Blade should be as well. And Hail of Thorns for the one Rangerer (Sorcerger?) player in the world. All fair or all foul for secondary splash damage.

The difference between Ice Knife and GFB is how the splash damage is targeted. GFB has to select a secondary target, but Ice Knife has no secondary target. They are not the same effect, and should not be treated the same.

[BiPolar]

The difference between Ice Knife and GFB is how the splash damage is targeted. GFB has to select a secondary target, but Ice Knife has no secondary target. They are not the same effect, and should not be treated the same.

The effect difference aren't the similarity that Joe is citing. It's that they both affect more than just a single target. GFB is an additional target while Ice Knife is an AoE. Neither of those seem to work with the Single Target rule of Twinned Spell.

[Easy_Lee]

The effect difference aren't the similarity that Joe is citing. It's that they both affect more than just a single target. GFB is an additional target while Ice Knife is an AoE. Neither of those seem to work with the Single Target rule of Twinned Spell.

Twinned doesn't say it only works on spells which only affect one creature. It says the spell can't target more than one creature. GFB and icy knife both have a single target, one roll, but have secondary effects which can hit other foes. This is distinct from a spell like eldritch blast, which specifically may target multiple foes.

So you have to define what is meant by "target." The rules don't make this clear. That's why it's a ruling, not a house rule.

[Corran]

Question: say you take three levels of rogue for assassin. Does GFB crit?
I would say yes for the damage that applies on weapon attack for which you use an attack roll, but I would say no for the damage to the secondary target, since this damage is not triggerd by an attack roll, but rather from casting the spell. Sure you must hit with your attack in order for the secondary damage to be applied, but that is just the condition that activates the secondary effect. At least that's how I read it (and how I played it with my previous character who was an assassin/sorcerer). But I am not 100% sure I am right, so dont take my word for it.

[Goodberry]

I would say yes for the damage that applies on weapon attack for which you use an attack roll, but I would say no for the damage to the secondary target, since this damage is not triggerd by an attack roll, but rather from casting the spell. Sure you must hit with your attack in order for the secondary damage to be applied, but that is just the condition that activates the secondary effect. At least that's how I read it (and how I played it with my previous character who was an assassin/sorcerer). But I am not 100% sure I am right, so dont take my word for it.

You are 100% correct. All damage from attacks (anything that requires an attack roll) is subject to crits. Any other damage is not.

[BiPolar]

Twinned doesn't say it only works on spells which only affect one creature. It says the spell can't target more than one creature. GFB and icy knife both have a single target, one roll, but have secondary effects which can hit other foes. This is distinct from a spell like eldritch blast, which specifically may target multiple foes.

So you have to define what is meant by "target." The rules don't make this clear. That's why it's a ruling, not a house rule.

The Language states "...cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn't have a range of self."

If we loosen up the language to allow GFB, then why can't we loosen the language to allow a fireball against a single creature. The spell language doesn't say anything about not including AoE spells. Fireball/sleet storm/etc. don't have a range of self and if there is only one creature in it, then the spell is only targeting one creature. Based on your interpretation, those spells are all now on the table. I could very well be wrong here, but that seems a logical extension of your interpretation.

If you read it the way I have in that only a single creature can be targeted within the spell, ever, then that removes GFB/Ice Knife/any AoE that is arranged to only affect one creature.

If you, as a DM, are willing to open it up like that, then go for it. Personally, I like my interpretation based on the Twinned Spell language and cost. Otherwise, it makes it significantly more powerful than likely intended.

[Easy_Lee]

The Language states "...cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn't have a range of self."

If we loosen up the language to allow GFB, then why can't we loosen the language to allow a fireball against a single creature. The spell language doesn't say anything about not including AoE spells. Fireball/sleet storm/etc. don't have a range of self and if there is only one creature in it, then the spell is only targeting one creature. Based on your interpretation, those spells are all now on the table. I could very well be wrong here, but that seems a logical extension of your interpretation.

If you read it the way I have in that only a single creature can be targeted within the spell, ever, then that removes GFB/Ice Knife/any AoE that is arranged to only affect one creature.

If you, as a DM, are willing to open it up like that, then go for it. Personally, I like my interpretation based on the Twinned Spell language and cost. Otherwise, it makes it significantly more powerful than likely intended.

Fireballs don't target a creature, but an area. Hence, not the same as a spell which targets one creature, but can affect others.

[BiPolar]

Fireballs don't target a creature, but an area. Hence, not the same as a spell which targets one creature, but can affect others.

I'm not saying that the two are equal, I'm saying that both spells would fall under "acceptable" under a ruling that loosens the language of Twinned Spell.

If you are choosing to loosen the ruling to allow GFB by saying that although more than one creature is affected by the spell (which one could very easily then say means that the spell has had two targets when it was all said and done), then one could also say that if only one creature is affected and there was not a range of self, then a fireball that only hit one person falls within the limits of the metamagic (it is not a range of self and only one creature is targeted by the effects of the spell).

Do you disagree with that?

[Easy_Lee]

I'm not saying that the two are equal, I'm saying that both spells would fall under "acceptable" under a ruling that loosens the language of Twinned Spell.

If you are choosing to loosen the ruling to allow GFB by saying that although more than one creature is affected by the spell (which one could very easily then say means that the spell has had two targets when it was all said and done), then one could also say that if only one creature is affected and there was not a range of self, then a fireball that only hit one person falls within the limits of the metamagic (it is not a range of self and only one creature is targeted by the effects of the spell).

Do you disagree with that?

Yes. A spell which targets an area, a spell which targets one creature, and a spell which targets multiple creatures are all different things. Examples of each include fireball, hold person, and eldritch blast, respectively. If you take a look at the 3.5e spell list, which was vastly more helpful, then you'll see a clear distinction made.

In 5e, we don't have a clear distinction, there. So it's basically whatever the DM decides. And it's impossible to rules lawyer the DM's ruling, as you just tried to do with mine. That's probably why WotC adopted the "Rulings, not Rules" mentality.

[BiPolar]

Yes. A spell which targets an area, a spell which targets one creature, and a spell which targets multiple creatures are all different things. Examples of each include fireball, hold person, and eldritch blast, respectively. If you take a look at the 3.5e spell list, which was vastly more helpful, then you'll see a clear distinction made.

In 5e, we don't have a clear distinction, there. So it's basically whatever the DM decides. And it's impossible to rules lawyer the DM's ruling, as you just tried to do with mine. That's probably why WotC adopted the "Rulings, not Rules" mentality.

Easy, easy_lee. I'm not rules lawyering you. I'm trying to look at the issue through your lens. We're (attempting) to have a discussion about what is a reasonable interpretation of the Twinned Spell language.

To break it down:

My Interpretation: The intent of "Targets only one creature" is that the gross effect of the spell is only delivered to one creature. That means no AoE, no multiple targets inherent (Level 3 hold person for instance), and no spells with riders that affect more than the single creature.

Your interpretation (or how I perceive it...hopefully didn't fumble that perception check): The intent of "targets only one creature" is the initial targeting of the spell. A sorcerer wanting to twin has only to see how many creatures are initially targeted and not how many creatures are affected.

My concern with your interpretation (if it's correct...if not, please correct it for me), is that it opens it up to things like AoE if they are only targeting a single creature. Now, one could say that Target spells are different than AoE spells (which is completely valid, because they are and listed as such on page 204 of PHB.) However, your ruling has already loosened up what we are defining as targets and it's a matter of taking that looseness and applying an AoE spell to a single person: One target.

I guess what I'm saying is your interpretation allows for potential abuse. My interpretation is limiting (whether RAW/RAI/my own opinion not withstanding), but prevents potential mis-use.

[RickAllison]

Twinned doesn't say it only works on spells which only affect one creature. It says the spell can't target more than one creature. GFB and icy knife both have a single target, one roll, but have secondary effects which can hit other foes. This is distinct from a spell like eldritch blast, which specifically may target multiple foes.

So you have to define what is meant by "target." The rules don't make this clear. That's why it's a ruling, not a house rule.

Let me re-phrase. Any ruling that permits GFB will permit Ice Knife, but not every ruling that permits Ice Knife will permit GFB. GFB becomes questionable because it has a secondary targeting effect which Ice Knife lacks. IK doesn't care if there are eight creatures in its AoE or none, its effect is the same. You cannot select or target anyone with the secondary effect, so a ruling banning the secondary targeting of GFB doesn't apply to IK.


The Language states "...cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn't have a range of self."

If we loosen up the language to allow GFB, then why can't we loosen the language to allow a fireball against a single creature. The spell language doesn't say anything about not including AoE spells. Fireball/sleet storm/etc. don't have a range of self and if there is only one creature in it, then the spell is only targeting one creature. Based on your interpretation, those spells are all now on the table. I could very well be wrong here, but that seems a logical extension of your interpretation.

If you read it the way I have in that only a single creature can be targeted within the spell, ever, then that removes GFB/Ice Knife/any AoE that is arranged to only affect one creature.

If you, as a DM, are willing to open it up like that, then go for it. Personally, I like my interpretation based on the Twinned Spell language and cost. Otherwise, it makes it significantly more powerful than likely intended.

Simple. Fireball targets an area and affects creatures in that area. GFB targets a creature, then targets a secondary creature using its effect. Ice Knife targets a creature, then has a secondary effect that triggers around that point. It cannot target anyone besides the initial target. It has no other targets besides the initial one. Thus, it is perfectly fine for Twinned Metamagic. The reason why IK can work this way while GFB can't is because IK is unique. No other spell works the way it does.

[BiPolar]

Simple. Fireball targets an area and affects creatures in that area. GFB targets a creature, then targets a secondary creature using its effect. Ice Knife targets a creature, then has a secondary effect that triggers around that point. It cannot target anyone besides the initial target. It has no other targets besides the initial one. Thus, it is perfectly fine for Twinned Metamagic. The reason why IK can work this way while GFB can't is because IK is unique. No other spell works the way it does.

That's what I was kind of getting at with my last post. Spells do seem to be classed between Targets and Areas of Effect. What I was going for was that if we have loosened the restriction on the definition of "target" within a spell (that it's only the primary target and not any secondary targets), then why couldn't we say that the fireball is targeting one creature. It doesn't say that the spell CAN'T be an AoE, just that it can only target one creature. This is not a ruling I'd support, but I could see people arguing for it (just like there are arguments for IK and GFB.)

[RickAllison]

That's what I was kind of getting at with my last post. Spells do seem to be classed between Targets and Areas of Effect. What I was going for was that if we have loosened the restriction on the definition of "target" within a spell (that it's only the primary target and not any secondary targets), then why couldn't we say that the fireball is targeting one creature. It doesn't say that the spell CAN'T be an AoE, just that it can only target one creature. This is not a ruling I'd support, but I could see people arguing for it (just like there are arguments for IK and GFB.)

Fireball targets a point (or area?). It doesn't matter whether it hits one or a dozen creatures, it targets none of them. Ice Knife can hit only the initial target or eight people, but it only targets the one. This is represented by the formula for its attack (attack roll to actually hit them, then the AoE).

Fireball is invalidated because it targets no creatures. GFB is invalid because a target of a secondary effect still counts as a target and so it can target two. Ice Knife can only target one because it's secondary effect (like Fireball) targets no one.

[BiPolar]

Fireball targets a point (or area?). It doesn't matter whether it hits one or a dozen creatures, it targets none of them. Ice Knife can hit only the initial target or eight people, but it only targets the one. This is represented by the formula for its attack (attack roll to actually hit them, then the AoE).

Fireball is invalidated because it targets no creatures. GFB is invalid because a target of a secondary effect still counts as a target and so it can target two. Ice Knife can only target one because it's secondary effect (like Fireball) targets no one.

That's one way to look at it :smallcool:

But yes,I agree, I'm just saying if I didn't I could argue the point.

For Ice Knife, I think the secondary AoE effect negates it's ability to be Twinned per my earlier thoughts. Howeer, I see your case as well. I Just wouldn't rule that way because I don't like the idea of Twin damaging more than 2 creatures.

[RickAllison]

That's one way to look at it :smallcool:

But yes,I agree, I'm just saying if I didn't I could argue the point.

For Ice Knife, I think the secondary AoE effect negates it's ability to be Twinned per my earlier thoughts. Howeer, I see your case as well. I Just wouldn't rule that way because I don't like the idea of Twin damaging more than 2 creatures.

Interestingly, a Twinned Ice Knife would have the unique situation where you could have the spell areas overlapping. However since it is the same spell, that wouldn't help as it would just be the same spell affecting and so only roll once...

Naturally a DM is allowed to negate this, but the nature of being an AoE has no effect on its ability to be twinned. And I don't think it is actually that powerful for its cost...

[BiPolar]

Interestingly, a Twinned Ice Knife would have the unique situation where you could have the spell areas overlapping. However since it is the same spell, that wouldn't help as it would just be the same spell affecting and so only roll once...

Naturally a DM is allowed to negate this, but the nature of being an AoE has no effect on its ability to be twinned. And I don't think it is actually that powerful for its cost...

It's more that it has a gross effect of damaging more than one person. The AoE rider makes that spell, to me, greater than targeting only one creature. Just for giggles, let's say that there are 2 groups of 3 creatures all within 5'. You twin the spell, target two and end up damaging all six. That seems to me to be a greater effect than intended with the language of Twinned.

[RickAllison]

It's more that it has a gross effect of damaging more than one person. The AoE rider makes that spell, to me, greater than targeting only one creature. Just for giggles, let's say that there are 2 groups of 3 creatures all within 5'. You twin the spell, target two and end up damaging all six. That seems to me to be a greater effect than intended with the language of Twinned.

I consider that to be a smart use of resources, and that a Twinned buff and control spells are often far more useful.

In my eyes, the strength of Twinned Ice Knife is not far over other options, but just far over most damaging options, because the best uses of the spell are things like Haste.

[BiPolar]

I consider that to be a smart use of resources, and that a Twinned buff and control spells are often far more useful.

In my eyes, the strength of Twinned Ice Knife is not far over other options, but just far over most damaging options, because the best uses of the spell are things like Haste.

Definitely a smart use, just not one I'd allow at my table :) Although we do have a draconic sorcerer specializing in ice so be interesting to see if he tries it and what our DM in that campaign says.

[SharkForce]

I think it's for cunning action. Being so close to the enemies (10ft) wont be safe for this character (given his many sorcerer levels and his mediocre con -since all bumps will go to dexterity and charisma). So cunning action would be useful for disengaging when enemies close in on you or for dashing, so that you can always keep a safer distance after hitting an enemy (with a 30ft speed he can always start his turn as far as 40ft from an enemy, then use his move to close in on 10ft, attack with the whip, and the use dash with cunning action to go back to where you were, that is 40ft away from the enemy). Granted he could have done it with mobile, but this way he wouldnt be able to max both charisma and dexterity and take spell sniper. That is the reason for vhuman too I suspect. Ofc this way he delays his spell progression (which is worse than being behind one ASI imo, assuming he went full sorcerer and with mobile), but he would hinder by a little his fire damage from twinnable GFB, and I think this is the aspect that he optimized around. Dealing as much fire damage as possible on a round-to-round basis. The whip just adds to the flavour, cause nothing beats a flaming whip (a la Balrog).

you're already a sorcerer with quicken spell.

just quicken green flame blade and then use your regular action to disengage or dash. and if it comes up over and over and over to the point where you're losing more by quickening spells, then maybe you should make better decisions about when to get close to the enemy.

[Vogonjeltz]

So you have to define what is meant by "target." The rules don't make this clear. That's why it's a ruling, not a house rule.

"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"

Both from PHB 204

Twinned Spell from PHB 102: "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn't have a range of self, you can spend a ..."

Greenflame Blade affects two targets. One is the subject of a melee attack with a weapon, the other is within 5 feet of the first. Because it runs afoul of the requirement to target only one creature, it can not be twinned.

[Corran]

you're already a sorcerer with quicken spell.

just quicken green flame blade and then use your regular action to disengage or dash. and if it comes up over and over and over to the point where you're losing more by quickening spells, then maybe you should make better decisions about when to get close to the enemy.
It's not quite the same though. Quickening a cantrip is rarely worth it imo. With this trick (twinning GFB and adding elemental afinity on top of it), you have achieved a superb at-will power (one of the best in the game). The cost is the short range of that at will power which is something you need to balance out somehow. While I will agree that there may be ways to do it better than taking a rogue dip (possibly by taking the mobile feat), it is still a very decent and efficient way of doing so. One thing going for cunning action compared to mobile, is that it can allow a greater maximum distance you can have from your opponents, through dashing. Hile mobile would allow you to constantly stay at most 30 feet from your enemies, cunning action dash allows you to stay at most 40 feet away from your enemies (meaning in both cases that you approach at 10ft to strike, and then you move back again).

Using sorcerer points to twin GFB with the added damage (sneak attack and elemental afinity), is also one of the best use of sorcery points I can think of (assuming the conditions are met for the secondary damage to be triggered). I do agree with what you said in a previous post to be an effective use of sp (mainly regarding the buff spells, as for debuffs I am of the opinion that upcasting is usualy better, though that depends on how else you can utilize your sp), this build can still go for such tactics too, as it is primarily a sorcerer.

Perhaps there are ways you can improve this build (I am thinking that adding one level of warlock might benefit us significantly, firstly due to the added damage with your GFB through that patron that allows adding your cha mod with fire and radiant damage (is it the undying? dont remember), and secondly by allowing us to learn armor of agathys and be able to use it with our higher level slots; for someone so close to melee opponents, and with that many spell slots, AoA could prove a vital addition to the build), but we might end up messing too much with the flavour.

[MeeposFire]

As for whip prof you can get that I believe from using the alternate rule in the gladiator background which lets you choose an "exotic" weapon. I think whip would qualify.

[RickAllison]

As for whip prof you can get that I believe from using the alternate rule in the gladiator background which lets you choose an "exotic" weapon. I think whip would qualify.

Not quite. You get the item itself, but not the proficiency to wield it. So you could get a whip via that background, but you wouldn't actually know how to use it.

[SharkForce]

It's not quite the same though. Quickening a cantrip is rarely worth it imo. With this trick (twinning GFB and adding elemental afinity on top of it), you have achieved a superb at-will power (one of the best in the game). The cost is the short range of that at will power which is something you need to balance out somehow. While I will agree that there may be ways to do it better than taking a rogue dip (possibly by taking the mobile feat), it is still a very decent and efficient way of doing so. One thing going for cunning action compared to mobile, is that it can allow a greater maximum distance you can have from your opponents, through dashing. Hile mobile would allow you to constantly stay at most 30 feet from your enemies, cunning action dash allows you to stay at most 40 feet away from your enemies (meaning in both cases that you approach at 10ft to strike, and then you move back again).

Using sorcerer points to twin GFB with the added damage (sneak attack and elemental afinity), is also one of the best use of sorcery points I can think of (assuming the conditions are met for the secondary damage to be triggered). I do agree with what you said in a previous post to be an effective use of sp (mainly regarding the buff spells, as for debuffs I am of the opinion that upcasting is usualy better, though that depends on how else you can utilize your sp), this build can still go for such tactics too, as it is primarily a sorcerer.

Perhaps there are ways you can improve this build (I am thinking that adding one level of warlock might benefit us significantly, firstly due to the added damage with your GFB through that patron that allows adding your cha mod with fire and radiant damage (is it the undying? dont remember), and secondly by allowing us to learn armor of agathys and be able to use it with our higher level slots; for someone so close to melee opponents, and with that many spell slots, AoA could prove a vital addition to the build), but we might end up messing too much with the flavour.

if your ability to run away a bit better is so central to the concept that it costs you a lot elsewhere, you should probably be devoting more resources to not needing to run away. but if you insist on a solution that doesn't require you to quicken a cantrip, misty step is a pretty good spell to have anyways, and allows you to disengage with your bonus action quite effectively. now yes, it *is* a level 2 spell, which isn't always something you have tons of like you do with cunning action. but again, if you cannot afford to be close to the enemy, shouldn't you have a "don't stand near the enemy" option? i mean, you're still a sorcerer, just firebolt stuff if you can't stand nearby. that sounds way better than being stuck with magic missile when you could have scorching ray, shatter when you could have fireball, haste when you could have polymorph, dominate beast when you could have animate objects, dominate person when you could have mass suggestion, arcane gate when you could have etherealness, etc. cunning action may not cost you limited resources (other than actions) to use, but it is not without cost. you're talking about delaying your really amazing options (the kind you'd want to use when the enemy is strong enough that standing nearby is a death sentence, come to think of it) to get more frequent access to options that are mediocre at a time when what you really need is awesome.

[Arkhios]

Overall very sketchy build if you'd ask me (but I believe you wouldn't), toying with writer's prerogative regarding to rules interpretation (=I think it works, so it must be legit). Personally, if I were to post builds for others to use, I'd stick to rules as written, not depending on a DM fiat which may never apply.

One thing that stood out specifically beyond the whip proficiency and twin GFB (both of which are subject to DM fiat to work), there's again this amateurish misunderstanding: War Caster requires you to be able to cast spells AT THE LEVEL YOU TAKE THE FEAT. Becoming a spellcaster at a later point, even with a subclass, DOES not qualify.

So, unless you start as a sorcerer, you can't "swap Spell Sniper for War Caster at first level" with the alternative build.

[Easy_Lee]

Overall very sketchy build if you'd ask me (but I believe you wouldn't), toying with writer's prerogative regarding to rules interpretation (=I think it works, so it must be legit). Personally, if I were to post builds for others to use, I'd stick to rules as written, not depending on a DM fiat which may never apply.

One thing that stood out specifically beyond the whip proficiency and twin GFB (both of which are subject to DM fiat to work), there's again this amateurish misunderstanding: War Caster requires you to be able to cast spells AT THE LEVEL YOU TAKE THE FEAT. Becoming a spellcaster at a later point, even with a subclass, DOES not qualify.

So, unless you start as a sorcerer, you can't "swap Spell Sniper for War Caster at first level" with the alternative build.

What's the point of having a playground if all you do is what the teachers tell you to? They aren't even playing.

I take it as an inalienable truth of gaming that finding sketchy, interesting rules interactions is one of the greatest sources of excitement for an intuitive thinker. I also take it as an inalienable truth of D&D that this is the one game where people will treat me as a pariah for doing something that the designers don't like.

The fact is that spells in 5e don't have a "Target" specification. In 3.5e, there was usually a box for target which said "you," "one creature," "you and one creature," "multiple creatures," etc. Either that, or it would have an area listed so you knew it was an AoE. We don't have that box in 5e. Therefore, it's up to each individual DM to decide what's valid for Twin.

Making a different decision than the designers doesn't make you a bad person.

And FYI, I addressed spell sniper earlier. 1 sort > 2 rogue.

[Zman]

Is no one else going to point out the fact that Spell Sniper requires that you can already cast a spell to take it?

This was my first thought when reading the OP and I read the entire thread to see if it was mentioned and there it was right at the end of the first page.

Yep, Spellsniper won't work. You'd need Magic Initiate to get GFB from level 1, but then would have to pick up Spell Sniper later.

Though, if you playing in a game that grants a 1st level feat to all PCs then High Elf would be an easy qualification.

[Citan]

Well, rogues already can't use whips, so the build needs DM fiat anyway. Fact is that the book doesn't explain what's meant by "target." Targets and Affects are two different things, in my opinion.

The book also doesn't explain why only certain kinds of spells can be twinned. Because balance? All spells of a given level should be equally useful, assuming the designers did a good job.

I'll leave it up to individual DMs to decide what to do.
While I disagree with Easy_Lee on some PHB readings, I fully agree here.

An effect of the spell that happens to be a fire damage effect that harms a close range creature which you choose should not be considered a "target".

Secondary argument: a target is a creature or object you choose when you cast the spell. The secondary effect that harms another creature actually occurs only if you hit first the actual target of your attack.

Tertiary argument: as I read it, GFB should actually hurt you if there is no other creature than you within the range of the added effect. Which I find funny and interesting anyways (forces you to use it tactically). Using it with Whip and Spell Sniper allows you to circumvent this risk (since the effect cannot benefit from Spell Sniper as I understand it). ;)
But whatever.

Last argument: all spells that are considered "multi-target" (but no AOE) so far, even if it is at higher levels (ex Eldricht Blast), precise very clearly that you choose one or several targets, at the moment you launch the attack or cast the save or suck spells.

[BiPolar]

While I disagree with Easy_Lee on some PHB readings, I fully agree here.

An effect of the spell that happens to be a fire damage effect that harms a close range creature which you choose should not be considered a "target".
Secondary argument: as I read it, GFB should actually hurt you if there is no other creature than you within the range of the added effect. Which I find funny and interesting anyways (forces you to use it tactically). Using it with Whip and Spell Sniper allows you to circumvent this risk (since the effect cannot benefit from Spell Sniper as I understand it). ;)

How does the spell decide who gets hit by the fire damage? Doesn't the spell have to "target"?

Basically, there is a primary target (single) and a secondary target (single.) The spell has two targets. It's just that one isn't resolved until the first has been resolved.

[Easy_Lee]

Secondary argument: as I read it, GFB should actually hurt you if there is no other creature than you within the range of the added effect. Which I find funny and interesting anyways (forces you to use it tactically). Using it with Whip and Spell Sniper allows you to circumvent this risk (since the effect cannot benefit from Spell Sniper as I understand it). ;)

This much seems pretty clear, at least. The fire leaps to a second creature of your choice within 5', but you don't have the choice to have it not leap. Since this is a secondary effect, and isn't controlled by the range of the spell (which is 5'), it's unaffected.

There have been threads about that, too. People were trying to extend GFB's effective range to 20', but it only goes out to up to 15' with Spell Sniper.

[RickAllison]

This much seems pretty clear, at least. The fire leaps to a second creature of your choice within 5', but you don't have the choice to have it not leap. Since this is a secondary effect, and isn't controlled by the range of the spell (which is 5'), it's unaffected.

There have been threads about that, too. People were trying to extend GFB's effective range to 20', but it only goes out to up to 15' with Spell Sniper.

Actually, it only goes to 10' with Spell Sniper ("When you cast a spell that requires you to make an attack roll, the spell’s range is doubled." and it has a range of 5'). You need Distant Metamagic to get it to the full 15' (and theoretically 20' if a weapon with such a range is used). That is just a minor correction for the specifics, though, it doesn't actually affect your core idea.

[Easy_Lee]

Actually, it only goes to 10' with Spell Sniper ("When you cast a spell that requires you to make an attack roll, the spell’s range is doubled." and it has a range of 5'). You need Distant Metamagic to get it to the full 15' (and theoretically 20' if a weapon with such a range is used). That is just a minor correction for the specifics, though, it doesn't actually affect your core idea.

I meant the range of the spell goes to 10', and the range of the extra goes to 5'. 5+10=15. People were arguing over whether the second effect was also extended.

[RickAllison]

I meant the range of the spell goes to 10', and the range of the extra goes to 5'. 5+10=15. People were arguing over whether the second effect was also extended.

Ahh. Well then you are fine!