What are peoples thoughts on the spell ice knife.

[Sir cryosin]

What are some ways to use and combos. And what are just your thoughts about the spell?

[hymer]

What are some ways to use and combos. And what are just your thoughts about the spell?

I'm annoyed by the targeting. To get full use of the spell, your enemies have to bunch up just right. And your side's melee can mess up your targeting inadvertently by doing what they're supposed to do - stand next to the enemy.
I think it's clunky in use.

[Oramac]

I'm upset that I can't use it with my Storm Sorcerer in Adventure League.

Other than that, I think it's actually a pretty useful spell. The damage isn't amazing, but it's a low-level AOE that potentially deals damage even if the spell attack misses, which is nice.

[NNescio]

I'm upset that I can't use it with my Storm Sorcerer in Adventure League.

Other than that, I think it's actually a pretty useful spell. The damage isn't amazing, but it's a low-level AOE that potentially deals damage even if the spell attack misses, which is nice.

Interestingly for a Sorcerer, it's one of the few AoE spells that can be Twinned. Rapidly becomes useless though, but eh, what else do you expect from a Level 1 damage spell?

[Oramac]

Interestingly for a Sorcerer, it's one of the few AoE spells that can be Twinned. Rapidly becomes useless though, but eh, what else do you expect from a Level 1 damage spell?

That is true. I wouldn't say it becomes useless, as it does scale with upcasting, but it does get outclassed by higher level spells.

That being said, you're right in that it's an AOE that can be Twinned, which could potentially be very useful.

Damn you Adventure League for not letting me use this on my Sorcerer! :P

[NNescio]

That is true. I wouldn't say it becomes useless, as it does scale with upcasting, but it does get outclassed by higher level spells.

That being said, you're right in that it's an AOE that can be Twinned, which could potentially be very useful.

Damn you Adventure League for not letting me use this on my Sorcerer! :P

Well, there's not point in upcasting it beyond 2nd, since you get Fireball at 3rd. The spell scales too slowly, has a tiny AoE, and deals no AoE damage if the target saves.

Heck, even at 2nd, Snilloc's Snowball Swarm is still better than an single upcasted Ice Knife, and that's another shoddy spell. Twinning Ice Knife makes it barely competitive.

[Oramac]

Well, there's not point in upcasting it beyond 2nd, since you get Fireball at 3rd. The spell scales too slowly, has a tiny AoE, and deals no AoE damage if the target saves.

Heck, even at 2nd, Snilloc's Snowball Swarm is still better than an single upcasted Ice Knife, and that's another shoddy spell. Twinning Ice Knife makes it barely competitive.

True enough. I guess I just like trying to find reasons to use spells. Even if they are kinda crappy.

[NNescio]

True enough. I guess I just like trying to find reasons to use spells. Even if they are kinda crappy.

It's a rather neat spell to use before your character hits Level 3, since it's, IIRC, the only ranged AoE damage spell at that point. It is competing with Sleep (which effectively takes out more effective HP, even if it doesn't deal damage) though.

The spell becomes more attractive on a Druid, since they lack instantaneous damage spells that don't require concentration (or for that matter, Sleep). Granted, they do have Erupting Earth, which also acts as semi-BC, but it doesn't really work against aerial targets. Still quite inefficient though.

[Dalebert]

Damn you Adventure League for not letting me use this on my Sorcerer! :P

Is this because your sorcerer is using SCAG material?

I also find it's clunky to use and gave up on it after a very short time. Since then I've seen situations when it could have been nice and the fact it's a twinnable AoE does make it more appealing. It can also benefit from Hex, or twinned Hex! It might also be nice to have as an alternative to fire for the many fire resistant or immune creatures.

[Easy_Lee]

I think Ice Knife is cool. It's always ice to see someone use it. Gives me the chills just thinking about the last time I saw it in play. The guy was new, and used the spell on the party as an ice breaker. The other players froze, unsure how to respond. He told everyone to go cool off. I tried to call the players back, but they gave me the cold shoulder.

[Oramac]

Is this because your sorcerer is using SCAG material?

Yes. I'm playing a Storm Sorcerer out of SCAG, so I can't use EE material. And since I'm specifically going for the whole Thunder/Lightning/Water/Ice motif for my character (Sailor background), I'm a bit miffed that I can't use Ice Knife. It's dumb, but whatever.

[RulesJD]

Interestingly for a Sorcerer, it's one of the few AoE spells that can be Twinned. Rapidly becomes useless though, but eh, what else do you expect from a Level 1 damage spell?

Unfortunately, Ice Knife cannot be Twinned due to the AoE effect rider without a homebrew ruling.

[RickAllison]

Twinned Ice Knife is great for white/silver draconic sorcerers, however. Greater flexibility to target two separate groups, increased damage if they fail their saves and, like Disintegration, doesn't have its damage reduced by Evasion. While it certainly is less useful for general purposes, it has its place with ice specialists.

[NNescio]

Unfortunately, Ice Knife cannot be Twinned due to the AoE effect rider without a homebrew ruling.


You create a shard of ice and fling it at one creature within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 piercing damage. Hit or miss, the shard then explodes. The target and each creature within 5 feet of the point where the ice exploded must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 2d6 cold damage.

Only one target here. The recipients of the AoE damage are explicitly different than "the target", as it calls them out separately.

[RickAllison]

Unfortunately, Ice Knife cannot be Twinned due to the AoE effect rider without a homebrew ruling.


Only one target here. The recipients of the AoE damage are explicitly different than "the target", as it calls them out separately.

Indeed, this is for the same reason that a Fireball or other AoE doesn't target any of the creatures in its radius.

It is actually a homebrew ruling if the DM doesn't allow it.

[mgshamster]

Ice knife can be twinned per Mearls on Sage Advice:

Sage Advice Link (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/07/01/twin-splash-dd-errata/)

You need a target, so most AoE spells don't work. You need one single target, so Ice knife works even with its AoE splash rider. But GFB doesn't work because it's picking one target followed by picking another target on the rider (its rider isn't splash).

[RulesJD]

Ice knife can be twinned per Mearls on Sage Advice:

Sage Advice Link (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/07/01/twin-splash-dd-errata/)

You need a target, so most AoE spells don't work. You need one single target, so Ice knife works even with its AoE splash rider. But GFB doesn't work because it's picking one target followed by picking another target on the rider (its rider isn't splash).

Nope.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/11/is-it-possible-to-twin-spell-chain-lightning/

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

Mike Mearls isn't the rules arbiter. It has been (quite literally) expressly stated that Jeremy Crawford is the "rules guy" and that Mike is not.

Does the spell have any ability to affect more than 1 creature or object as cast at its current level?

Yes = not Twinnable

No = Twinnable

[NNescio]

Nope.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/11/is-it-possible-to-twin-spell-chain-lightning/

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

Mike Mearls isn't the rules arbiter. It has been (quite literally) expressly stated that Jeremy Crawford is the "rules guy" and that Mike is not.

Does the spell have any ability to affect more than 1 creature or object as cast at its current level?

Yes = not Twinnable

No = Twinnable

Chain Lightning explicitly calls out all affected creatures as "targets".


You create a bolt of lightning that arcs toward a target of your choice that you can see within range. Three bolts then leap from that target to as many as three other targets, each of which must be within 30 feet of the first target. A target can be a creature or an object and can be targeted by only one of the bolts.

A target must make a Dexterity saving throw. The target takes 10d8 lightning damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

GFB is less clear, but it does have verbiage stating "to a different creature of your choice...", which can be interpreted as a second target, since you get to choose.

Ice Knife has no such text. It explicitly calls out a single target, refers to it as "the target", and treats it differently compared to the other creatures within 5ft of the point centered on the target creature.

[mgshamster]

Nope.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/11/is-it-possible-to-twin-spell-chain-lightning/

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

Mike Mearls isn't the rules arbiter. It has been (quite literally) expressly stated that Jeremy Crawford is the "rules guy" and that Mike is not.

Does the spell have any ability to affect more than 1 creature or object as cast at its current level?

Yes = not Twinnable

No = Twinnable

"Affect" is not the determining factor. "Target" is the determining factor. If it was affect, then that changes a whole ton of spell interactions, as there are many spells which affect more than one creature, but have a more limited number of targets.

[Easy_Lee]

"Affect" is not the determining factor. "Target" is the determining factor. If it was affect, then that changes a whole ton of spell interactions, as there are many spells which affect more than one creature, but have a more limited number of targets.

3.5e made this whole thing so much easier with the "Target" box for spells. I don't know why they didn't carry that over to 5e.

[mgshamster]

3.5e made this whole thing so much easier with the "Target" box for spells. I don't know why they didn't carry that over to 5e.

I concur. They moved it into the spell description, but didn't do it universally and sometimes changed up the language. Makes it annoying. I may create a document listing the targets for all spells for clarification.

[RickAllison]

Nope.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/11/is-it-possible-to-twin-spell-chain-lightning/

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

Mike Mearls isn't the rules arbiter. It has been (quite literally) expressly stated that Jeremy Crawford is the "rules guy" and that Mike is not.

Does the spell have any ability to affect more than 1 creature or object as cast at its current level?

Yes = not Twinnable

No = Twinnable

As the poster above me explained, the text of both spells you cited have the caster actually select the affected people, or he "targets" them. Contrast this to a spell like Fireball. Fireball involves selecting a point, then affects any creatures within that range. None of those creatures are targets, however. Fireball doesn't care if a creature is invisible or otherwise unable to be targeted, it affects the area. Same with Ice Knife's secondary effect.

The rules even clarify that there is a difference between a creature being targeted and a creature being affected. If we look at Sanctuary's text:


You ward a creature within range against attack. Until
the spell ends, any creature who targets the warded
creature with an attack or a harmful spell must first
make a W isdom saving throw. On a failed save, the
creature must choose a new target or lose the attack
or spell. This spell doesn’t protect the w arded creature
from area effects, such as the explosion o f a fireball.
If the warded creature makes an attack or casts a spell
that affects an enemy creature, this spell ends.

It prevents the user from being targeted easily, but does nothing to prevent being affected. Additionally, the criteria for it breaking does not rely on targeting enemy creatures, but on affecting them (the only spells I can think of that might apply would be something like Detect Thoughts that targeted a creature to read them, but it doesn't actually affect them in any way).

[RulesJD]

You can debate the use of the word "Target" all you want, JC has been explicitly clear that any spell which can impact more than 1 thing isn't Twinnable. Good luck getting him to change that.

[mgshamster]

You can debate the use of the word "Target" all you want, JC has been explicitly clear that any spell which can impact more than 1 thing isn't Twinnable. Good luck getting him to change that.

No he didn't. He said, specifically, if it targets more than one creature. Not if it impacts or affects more than one creature.

There is a difference.

His exact words:

"Here's the test: is a spell capable of targeting more than one creature? If yes, the spell can't be twinned."

Link (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/07/01/twin-thunderwave-dd-errata/)

Unless you can provide evidence otherwise, it is, always has been, and will continue to be "target" and not "affect."

[RulesJD]

No he didn't. He said, specifically, if it targets more than one creature. Not if it impacts or affects more than one creature.

There is a difference.

His exact words:

"Here's the test: is a spell capable of targeting more than one creature? If yes, the spell can't be twinned."

Link (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/07/01/twin-thunderwave-dd-errata/)

Unless you can provide evidence otherwise, it is, always has been, and will continue to be "target" and not "affect."

If you would actually read the links I provided this will all be a lot easier.

"Twinned Spell doesn't work with a spell that targets more than 1 creature. Green-flame blade targets 2"

GFB language only uses the word target in reference to the main target. The secondary damage doesn't use the word target. And yet, JC is clear as day, that GFB can't be Twinned because GFB is capable of affects more than 2 creatures.

So yes, I'm right. I don't get why everyone is so hard up to try and find loopholes for Twinned spells using what everyone knows is a cantrip/spell that impacts more than 1 person.

[NNescio]

If you would actually read the links I provided this will all be a lot easier.

"Twinned Spell doesn't work with a spell that targets more than 1 creature. Green-flame blade targets 2"

GFB language only uses the word target in reference to the main target. The secondary damage doesn't use the word target. And yet, JC is clear as day, that GFB can't be Twinned because GFB is capable of affects more than 2 creatures.

So yes, I'm right. I don't get why everyone is so hard up to try and find loopholes for Twinned spells using what everyone knows is a cantrip/spell that impacts more than 1 person.

Crawford specifically uses the word "target". "Capable of affects (sic) more than 2 creatures" is just something you made up (and patently untrue, GFB only affects 1 or two creatures.)

Chain Lightning explicitly designates all affectees as "targets". GFB doesn't explicitly designate the second creature as a target, but "choosing a creature/object" can be interpreted as picking a target. This is consistent with other spells, like Hold Person's "Choose a humanoid that you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be paralyzed for the duration.", and Enlarge/Reduce's "Choose either a creature or an object that is neither worn nor carried. If the target is unwilling, it can make a Constitution saving throw. ", from which we can infer that choosing a creature or object designates the creature/object as a target.

AoE spells and AoE rider effects do not allow the caster to designate, or choose creatures and objects (and in fact can often affect allied creatures indiscriminately). They target no creatures.

Ruling otherwise (that merely affecting a creature/object makes it a target) leads to absurdities like a Spectator being able to deflect Fireballs, Web (even after it's cast) and ongoing spell effects like Flaming Sphere.

[RickAllison]

Here is some RAW to clarify about 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 o f origin for an area o f effect (described below).

So the best rule I could find for what a spell's target is in 5e is for it to pick something. This is consistent with the spells Crawford ruled as not functioning with Twin. GFB has you indicate two creatures, two targets. Even if there five potential people who can be attacked with the secondary effect, you must choose one. Lightning Bolt has you choose which creatures are effected by the secondary effect, letting you pick targets. Ice Knife doesn't. Ice Knife says to pick your initial target, then uses that point of origin for its secondary effect. You never pick anyone besides the person initially attacked.

[mgshamster]

If you would actually read the links I provided this will all be a lot easier.

"Twinned Spell doesn't work with a spell that targets more than 1 creature. Green-flame blade targets 2"

GFB language only uses the word target in reference to the main target. The secondary damage doesn't use the word target. And yet, JC is clear as day, that GFB can't be Twinned because GFB is capable of affects more than 2 creatures.

So yes, I'm right. I don't get why everyone is so hard up to try and find loopholes for Twinned spells using what everyone knows is a cantrip/spell that impacts more than 1 person.

This would be a lot easier if you actually read your own links you provided. In both links, Crawford specifically says "target" and does not say "affect" or "impact."

You keep inserting rules and words and proclaiming yourself right, when in fact you are wrong. This is not the first time you've been caught doing so, and your arrogance is causing you to be unwilling to admit error.

Here's the logic Crawford is using, as he has described with the link I provided:

GFB has you pick a first person, then pick a second person. You're choosing who it is. Therefore it's a target and not just someone affected.

Ice Knife has you choose a first person, then anyone nearby is affected whether you want them to be or not. They are affected, but they are not targets.

Chain Lightning specifically calls all those affected as targets, if you would actually read the spell and Crawford's own post that you yourself linked.

The case is judged by whether you are actively targetting them (aka choosing your victims) or whether the spell specifically calls them targets. I don't get why you're so hard up trying to create a loophole to avoid this.

[Easy_Lee]

This would be a lot easier if you actually read your own links you provided. In both links, Crawford specifically says "target" and does not say "affect" or "impact."

You keep inserting rules and words and proclaiming yourself right, when in fact you are wrong. This is not the first time you've been caught doing so, and your arrogance is causing you to be unwilling to admit error.


Here's a perfect example of someone claiming that anything which violates RAI is wrong. It's not wrong just because Crawford doesn't support it. Not everyone plays strictly according to RAI, as you seem to.

[Sir cryosin]

PEOPLE ,PEOPLE we are not here to argue about its ruling. I just would like ideas on how people has used the spell.

[NNescio]

PEOPLE ,PEOPLE we are not here to argue about its ruling. I just would like ideas on how people has used the spell.

Like I said, Twin it.

[Oramac]

PEOPLE ,PEOPLE we are not here to argue about its ruling. I just would like ideas on how people has used the spell.

It's great at low levels for packs of mobs.

It scales, but not very well.

It fits a particular theme, if your character uses that theme.

It may or may not be effected by Metamagic (depending on your DM)

===================

Personally, I like the spell.

Also, well said.

[RickAllison]

Sever a rope while freezing whatever it is dropping (RAF). Drop a bushel of apples that then are ice-balls suitable for use as improvised weapons.

Be an awesome ninja by flavoring your Ice Knife as a kunai.

Freeze a patch of water at a distance so your ally can cross (RAF).

[Easy_Lee]

Warlock 2 / Silver Dragon Sorcerer X. Repelling blast some targets into a corner, bonus action Ice Knife them.

[mgshamster]

Here's a perfect example of someone claiming that anything which violates RAI is wrong. It's not wrong just because Crawford doesn't support it. Not everyone plays strictly according to RAI, as you seem to.

Are you seriously using a RAW argument as evidence that either RulesJD or I are against changing RAW or RAI?

RulesJD may be a jerk, and he is clearly obsessed with the rules (hence his name, "Rules Lawyer"), but multiple times he's said he would change how the rules work if he doesn't like how they play out as written or intended.

For myself, there have been many times I've defended people here on the forums for their Houserules and why they want to change it. Ask Grod. Ask Zman. Or any of the others I've defended against people saying "You can't change it, it works as written" when they wanted to change something because they don't like how it works as written.

The difference is that they clearly label their material as a house rule to specifically change the rules they don't like.

You, on the other hand, argue that you don't have to label it, because it's "just as valid." And while I agree that we should change things up as we like, not labeling it, especially after it's been pointed out and requested, is misleading at best and lying at worst.

RulesJD was right - the *only* reason you're arguing against it is so you don't have to admit your wrong. You go from straw manning and misrepresenting others to condescension to insults to crying foul and accusing others of belittling you or silencing you to arguing that the rules are the rules to arguing that the rules don't matter and back and forth - anything to avoid admitting you're wrong. That's been the one consistent thing with you, an avoidance of admitting an error, no matter how inconsequential or slight.

[Oramac]

Sever a rope while freezing whatever it is dropping (RAF). Drop a bushel of apples that then are ice-balls suitable for use as improvised weapons.

Be an awesome ninja by flavoring your Ice Knife as a kunai.

Freeze a patch of water at a distance so your ally can cross (RAF).

Pray tell, what is RAF? Read As......Funyuns? :P

[mgshamster]

PEOPLE ,PEOPLE we are not here to argue about its ruling. I just would like ideas on how people has used the spell.

My apologies. I'll refrain from the argument any further.

As for the spell itself, I've seen it used to curtail back dangerous green slime patches. :)

[RickAllison]

Pray tell, what is RAF? Read As......Funyuns? :P

Rules as Fun. I argue rules in terms of RAW and RAI, but RAF and Rules as Logic rule at my table.

[hymer]

Pray tell, what is RAF? Read As......Funyuns? :P

Royal Air Force, I believe. :smallbiggrin:

[Easy_Lee]

RulesJD was right - the *only* reason you're arguing against it is so you don't have to admit your wrong..

"Your wrong" huh? It isn't my wrong that you assume RAI is "right," and anyone who disagrees with it is "wrong." I argue about whether a ruling is valid against RAW, which is to say whether people like yourself would accept it if it came from Crawford. I don't much care what his specific ruling is.

I'm not wrong. But I am sick and tired of being told that I am just because I don't follow Crawford's rulings.

I will tell you how to make this discussion civil, so it doesn't come up again. If you don't want to offend, then you should never, EVER, use the word "wrong" when discussing a ruling.

Edit: and for the record, just in case anyone gets all report happy, I'm not telling you to do anything. I'm offering advice. Call it Lee Advice. Because as we know, advice is not intended to dictate others' actions.

[Oramac]

Rules as Fun. I argue rules in terms of RAW and RAI, but RAF and Rules as Logic rule at my table.

Basically, putting the story and player fun ahead of the rules. I like it.

[Dalebert]

PEOPLE ,PEOPLE we are not here to argue about its ruling. I just would like ideas on how people has used the spell.

Ah, your naivete is adorable. We're here to argue about EVERYTHING AND IT'S MOM! :smallbiggrin:

[RickAllison]

APA (Anti-Pixie Artillery)

Easy_Lee is right in that we shouldn't say he is wrong. We should say he is wrong according to the default ruleset. No DM can be wrong at the table, but they can be wrong in terms of the generally-accepted set of rules and rulings of the game.

[Shining Wrath]

It's a powerful spell for its level. Combines well with movement restriction spells that cause foes to bunch up or can be dropped "behind the lines" when melee scrum allows.

[RulesJD]

*sigh*


You are seriously mistaken if you think JC is going to support the idea that Ice Knife can be Twinned. But by all means, shoot him a tweet. I would love to see an AoE spell magically (pun intended) be declared okay for Twin spell.


And you say it's special because you don't get to "choose" the creatures (not targets which you are all choosing to latch onto as a magic word despite that fact that GFB also doesn't use the word target for the secondary damage) impacted by it, unlike GFB. This, despite the obvious implication that it is even less likely to qualify for any RAI/RAW use of Twin because it is *grabs airhorn* AN AREA OF EFFECT.

The word target is not a magic word between Twinnable or not. That has been 100% confirmed as RAW/RAI via JC's tweet on GFB. So stop trying to develop a rationale where Ice Knife now counts just because it doesn't use the word target in the spell description.

Or, as I said above, feel free to tweet JC and watch him confirm what I'm telling you.

[James warden]

Knowledgeable information

[Eriol]

Well, there's not point in upcasting it beyond 2nd, since you get Fireball at 3rd. The spell scales too slowly, has a tiny AoE, and deals no AoE damage if the target saves.
Agree on the fireball comment, not useful upcasted to 3rd. And unfortunately correct on the "no dmg" if saved, though my DM says it's half damage like most other AoEs. So that's nice in my case.

Heck, even at 2nd, Snilloc's Snowball Swarm is still better than an single upcasted Ice Knife, and that's another shoddy spell.
Even w/o the "save for half" ruling at my table, you have Snilloc's which is 3d6, whereas Ice Knife at lvl 2 is 1d10 to primary plus 3d6 to the rest. So how is it worse? If the save is zero damage, then yes, it's debatable, and worse for groups, but for the primary target, it's still the extra 1d10.

So I wouldn't say snilloc's replaces it whole-hog even pure RAW. And with the ruling at my table, Sniolloc's is just plain worse, though of course that's DM-dependent.

For a very Raw-ish Sorc, it could be an interesting low-level take, that you replace later once you get more powerful AoEs. Same for Wizards, where you don't need to memorize it anymore, freeing up slots.