Twinned Spell on Chain lightning

[Drago74]

Hi,
We are having discussion about Sorcerer Twinned Spell metamagic.
The definition of twinned , wrote from player handbook (( when you cast a spell that target only one creature and doesn't have range of self ))

The spell chain lighting definition, says :
you create a bolt of lightning that arc toward A target of your choice that you can see within range.
then 3 bolt leap from that target to as many other targets of your choice

If the spell is done on 1 target and leap out of that target ... does it count as multiple target spell - AOE ( ex.: fire ball )?

question is : can a sorcerer twin Chain lightning ?

Thanks

[Sigreid]

I would say yes, it is not and was not meant to be a single target spell.

[Matrix_Walker]

It is not a single target spell and cannot be twinned.

[PeteNutButter]

I'd allow it.

I go with an MTG interpretation of targeting. Words have meanings and we might as well use them. If something targets it targets. Chain Lightning only has one target, then jumps to others.

Ice knife is famously allowed according to the tweets, but GFB isn't according to the tweets.

What that means to me is they are just winging it. Rule as you will

[Easy_Lee]

This reminds me of the old twin Greenflame Blade debates. It targets one creature but can hit a second. I guess people would argue that, since chain lightning let's you pick the additional targets, it counts as having more than one.

Of course, this does nothing to address the elephant in the room: why does this limitation exist in the first place? I'll leave it to WotC to answer that question.

[Avonar]

I'd say that you can Twin Spell it, it is a single target spell. However, since the spell does state that you can only target a creature once with the bolts, I would say you can't use it to double up. You have two sets of bolts but they both come from the same spell.

[90sMusic]

By strict following of the rules as written and using literal interpretation, yes, you can twin chain lightning because the spell clearly only targets one creature.

After the spell affects the target, it does other effects, but it still only directly targets one creature in it's initial casting.

Rules as Intended however... Think it's pretty clear it wasn't meant to be twinned. The whole reasoning behind the wording is to try to prevent you from doubling up on AOE.

[Contrast]

I would say yes, it is not and was not meant to be a single target spell.

...did you mean no, it can't be twinned because its not single target? :smallconfused:


If something targets it targets. Chain Lightning only has one target, then jumps to others.

Ice knife is famously allowed according to the tweets, but GFB isn't according to the tweets.

What that means to me is they are just winging it. Rule as you will

I'm not seeing the inconsistency. Ice knife does AoE damage around a single target so can be twinned. Green flame blade hits one target and then designates additional targets so has multiple targets and cannot be twinned. Chain lighting targets one person and then targets secondary people, resulting in multiple targets and cannot be twinned.

I'll admit the difference is somewhat arbitrary but its certainly there.

Edit - Wait...per the below ice knife isn't twinnable? So...that makes it even clearer? :smallconfused:


Of course, this does nothing to address the elephant in the room: why does this limitation exist in the first place? I'll leave it to WotC to answer that question.

Why doesn't twin let me concentrate on two different spells? Why doesn't extend allow me to keep up a spell after I've lost concentration? Why can't I use my action to cast another full spell after quickening a spell? Why doesn't subtle spell also ignore material components? etc etc

[Matrix_Walker]

I'd allow it.

I go with an MTG interpretation of targeting. Words have meanings and we might as well use them. If something targets it targets. Chain Lightning only has one target, then jumps to others.

Ice knife is famously allowed according to the tweets, but GFB isn't according to the tweets.

What that means to me is they are just winging it. Rule as you will

Check out J. Crawford's podcast. http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/wolfgang-baur-girl-scouts-midgard

Confusing English definitions with game terms is an easy error to make.

Ice knife is called out as NOT being a valid spell for twinning, as it can have an impact on multiple targets.


Edit: Here is the Sage Advice where he calls it out as untwinnable as well: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/04/11/can-i-use-twinned-spell-on-ice-knife/

[PeteNutButter]

Check out J. Crawford's podcast. http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/wolfgang-baur-girl-scouts-midgard

Confusing English definitions with game terms is an easy error to make.

Ice knife is called out as NOT being a valid spell for twinning, as it can have an impact on multiple targets.


Edit: Here is the Sage Advice where he calls it out as untwinnable as well: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/04/11/can-i-use-twinned-spell-on-ice-knife/

I'll admit to having only heard that information second hand. Apparently if I go to the source, I don't make an ass of myself. :smallbiggrin:

Any AoE at all it would seem, precludes twinning at least according to designers intent.

If I were designing it, I'd keep it simple. The real balance reason for this is so you don't double the effect of your damage spells, like double fireball. It's balance breaking. So to balance twin it should just specifiy that "A twinned spell cannot effect a single target more than once." Simple, succinct, and doesn't preclude spells, just their potential overlap.

[Sigreid]

...did you mean no, it can't be twinned because its not single target? :smallconfused:


Yes, I was saying it can't be twinned because its purpose is to hit more than one target. Just in a lightning thematic way.

[Contrast]

I'll admit to having only heard that information second hand. Apparently if I go to the source, I don't make an ass of myself. :smallbiggrin:

Any AoE at all it would seem, precludes twinning at least according to designers intent.

If I were designing it, I'd keep it simple. The real balance reason for this is so you don't double the effect of your damage spells, like double fireball. It's balance breaking. So to balance twin it should just specifiy that "A twinned spell cannot effect a single target more than once." Simple, succinct, and doesn't preclude spells, just their potential overlap.

In fairness to you - Conflicting sage advice from 2015 (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/07/01/twin-splash-dd-errata/).

[PeteNutButter]

In fairness to you - Conflicting sage advice from 2015 (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/07/01/twin-splash-dd-errata/).

Just lolz. Moral of the story is rule as you please.

[Matrix_Walker]

Mike Mearls often plays it fast, loose and wrong.

As much as I dislike Greyhawk initiative, I find it to be about on Par for him.

[DivisibleByZero]

RAW & RAI: If any spell has the ability to affect multiple creatures, it is not a single target spell.
Note: This is different from actually doing so. I can cast all of my Scorching Rays or lvl5+ Eldritch Blasts at the same target, but since I can *choose* not to if I want, they are not single target spells.

RAC & RAF: Rule whatever the heck you want to for your table.

[90sMusic]

Why doesn't twin let me concentrate on two different spells?

Twin lets you concentrate on two different effects at the same time. It doesn't cast two spells, it just doubles the effect of a single spell. Concentrating on that single spell can maintain the effect on multiple targets through twinning, just as using hold person on multiple targets only requires a single instance of concentration.

As for twinning chain lightning, just do what you want honestly. D&D works better when you don't worry so much about the rules in the first place.

[JackPhoenix]

In fairness to you - Conflicting sage advice from 2015 (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/07/01/twin-splash-dd-errata/).

MM isn't the rules guy, JC is. MM's advice can be safely ignored, it's about as valid for RAI as any random guy on the 'net. Propably somewhat less valid, even.

[Contrast]

Possibly I should make more liberal use of blue/explain my posts more...


Snip

In case it wasn't clear, those questions were asked rhetorically. I was responding to Easy_Lee querying why twin has a single target restriction by making the point that lots of rules in our games of dragons and dungeons are arbitrary.


MM isn't the rules guy, JC is. MM's advice can be safely ignored, it's about as valid for RAI as any random guy on the 'net. Propably somewhat less valid, even.

I agree, I was just highlighting that there was a reasonable justification for PeteNutButter being mislead in the past.

[Deleted]

Hi,
We are having discussion about Sorcerer Twinned Spell metamagic.
The definition of twinned , wrote from player handbook (( when you cast a spell that target only one creature and doesn't have range of self ))

The spell chain lighting definition, says :
you create a bolt of lightning that arc toward A target of your choice that you can see within range.
then 3 bolt leap from that target to as many other targets of your choice

If the spell is done on 1 target and leap out of that target ... does it count as multiple target spell - AOE ( ex.: fire ball )?

question is : can a sorcerer twin Chain lightning ?

Thanks

Nope.

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

[Easy_Lee]

Nope.

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

While I understand his reasoning, this is exactly why we need more descriptive spell descriptions. 3.5e had a "targets" block for spells like this, and chain lightning from that era targeted "One primary target, plus one secondary target/level (each of which must be within 30 ft. of the primary target)." That's clear. Saying the spell targets one creature but then hits additional creatures of your choice is not clear. Depending on the exact spell (again, Greenflame Blade being the best example), this can get very muddy and opinionated.

[Chugger]

I'd allow it.

I go with an MTG interpretation of targeting. Words have meanings and we might as well use them. If something targets it targets. Chain Lightning only has one target, then jumps to others.

Ice knife is famously allowed according to the tweets, but GFB isn't according to the tweets.

What that means to me is they are just winging it. Rule as you will

Exactly. They're winging it. Good call.

[Chugger]

While I understand his reasoning, this is exactly why we need more descriptive spell descriptions. 3.5e had a "targets" block for spells like this, and chain lightning from that era targeted "One primary target, plus one secondary target/level (each of which must be within 30 ft. of the primary target)." That's clear. Saying the spell targets one creature but then hits additional creatures of your choice is not clear. Depending on the exact spell (again, Greenflame Blade being the best example), this can get very muddy and opinionated.

Absolutely. I like 5e but do not feel comfortable with many of the rule explanations - they're incomplete - too sparse. Like for this. You give a great example of how the rules don't have to be too sparse.

[DivisibleByZero]

Absolutely. I like 5e but do not feel comfortable with many of the rule explanations - they're incomplete - too sparse. Like for this. You give a great example of how the rules don't have to be too sparse.

It isn't incomplete.
It's semantics.
Leaping from the target to another creature is the exact same thing as leaping from the primary target to a secondary target, except to a lawyer.

[PeteNutButter]

It isn't incomplete.
It's semantics.
Keeping from the target too anther creature of the exact same thing as keeping from the primary target to a secondary target, receipt to a lawyer.

See I disagree. What I referenced before was MTG. In MTG (A game with much clearer rules) if a spell targets something it must explicitly target something. If it doesn't say target, it doesn't target.

Certain cards cannot be targeted. But they can be effected by others that have a method of choice other than target.

I suspect other D&D groups that have a large number of MTG players (former or current) would see it the way I do.

[PhoenixPhyre]

See I disagree. What I referenced before was MTG. In MTG (A game with much clearer rules) if a spell targets something it must explicitly target something. If it doesn't say target, it doesn't target.

Certain cards cannot be targeted. But they can be effected by others that have a method of choice other than target.

I suspect other D&D groups that have a large number of MTG players (former or current) would see it the way I do.

I strongly dislike this style of rules (call it legalistic style) for TTRPGs. It works for card games because those are a) closed systems (only the cards and the rules matter) that are b) competitive. TTRPGs are neither closed nor competitive, so they shouldn't use the same style of rules.

This style ends up (in my experience) not solving debates (because TTRPGs are open-ended in a way that MTG is not) and only provides fodder for those (GM or player) who wish to weaponize rules against someone else. Rules are not, and should not be, a shield to hide behind when you make an un-fun or antagonistic decision. When you do something obtuse or un-fun, pointing to "RAW says" doesn't help anyone in any way. In addition, writing proper legalistic text is seriously hard--each layer of complexity increases the number of "loopholes" (which are now sanctioned and defended against change as RAW) geometrically. I don't trust the devs (of any game system) to do this right.

Instead, play with people you trust and use your words to communicate. Compromise is required on all sides, as is good faith. Don't hold "the rules say I can, so ..." as a club--use them as guidelines to enhance fun. Above all, remember that the rules were made to help people have fun playing a game. The game was not made for the rules. In a conflict between the two, the rules should give way to fun not vice versa.

In this particular case, the RAW and RAI are both crystal clear. Is it possible for a spell to directly affect more than one creature? If so, twinning is not allowed. Does chain lightning affect more than one creature? Yes. So twinning can't happen.

[PeteNutButter]

I strongly dislike this style of rules (call it legalistic style) for TTRPGs. It works for card games because those are a) closed systems (only the cards and the rules matter) that are b) competitive. TTRPGs are neither closed nor competitive, so they shouldn't use the same style of rules.

This style ends up (in my experience) not solving debates (because TTRPGs are open-ended in a way that MTG is not) and only provides fodder for those (GM or player) who wish to weaponize rules against someone else. Rules are not, and should not be, a shield to hide behind when you make an un-fun or antagonistic decision. When you do something obtuse or un-fun, pointing to "RAW says" doesn't help anyone in any way. In addition, writing proper legalistic text is seriously hard--each layer of complexity increases the number of "loopholes" (which are now sanctioned and defended against change as RAW) geometrically. I don't trust the devs (of any game system) to do this right.

Instead, play with people you trust and use your words to communicate. Compromise is required on all sides, as is good faith. Don't hold "the rules say I can, so ..." as a club--use them as guidelines to enhance fun. Above all, remember that the rules were made to help people have fun playing a game. The game was not made for the rules. In a conflict between the two, the rules should give way to fun not vice versa.

In this particular case, the RAW and RAI are both crystal clear. Is it possible for a spell to directly affect more than one creature? If so, twinning is not allowed. Does chain lightning affect more than one creature? Yes. So twinning can't happen.

I don't disagree. TTRPGs shouldn't be played that way. But what we are talking about isn't some edge case that the designers could never have planned for. We are asking can I apply ability x to spell y, using only the phb. It's not, "Can i cast a twinned chain lightning in a lightning storm, while my character is wrapped in wire, and time is slowed..."

Everything can change at the table and require DM rulings, but in a white room the book should be able to answer questions that are that simple. This is like the barbarian asking if rage damage should apply to his javelins. This is a common question I see asked, but it is very clearly answered by careful reading of the section on rage.

Why should a sorcerer not be given clarity in his abilities? I see no reason not to include proper verbiage. It wouldn't detract from the game in any way if the legalize was made to reflect intent. It would only clarify.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't disagree. TTRPGs shouldn't be played that way. But what we are talking about isn't some edge case that the designers could never have planned for. We are asking can I apply ability x to spell y, using only the phb. It's not, "Can i cast a twinned chain lightning in a lightning storm, while my character is wrapped in wire, and time is slowed..."

Everything can change at the table and require DM rulings, but in a white room the book should be able to answer questions that are that simple. This is like the barbarian asking if rage damage should apply to his javelins. This is a common question I see asked, but it is very clearly answered by careful reading of the section on rage.

Why should a sorcerer not be given clarity in his abilities?

It does give clarity, if you read it in the way it was intended. "Target" is not used in a technical sense, and shouldn't be read as such. There's no significant ambiguity here--people often ask questions because they either a) don't trust their own reading or b) want to hear a different answer as justification, rather than out of true misunderstanding.

Note--the following is not directed at you, but inspired by this whole discussion
There is a hangover legacy from earlier editions (3.5, mostly) that demands a legalistic reading. That has no place in 5e. If you're parsing words and sentence constructions, you're almost certainly doing it wrong. The rules were not designed to be read that way, and doing so will only make things worse for everybody.

If you're the DM, take the simplest explanation that makes sense, and run with it. If it's causing un-fun, adjust. Most of all, talk about it. If you're the player and you get "nerfed" because of adjustments, take it up after the game. If everybody's trying to help everybody have fun, there's no need to be antagonistic or to insist on "the RAW says." Mutually find what works best for the table. Errors will happen--that's life. Adjust and move on.

There's this fear of OOC conversations about rule elements that seems to crop up all over the place. It's a social game, so talk it out. Find what works best for the group. Don't use rules as a weapon.

[Easy_Lee]

I strongly dislike this style of rules (call it legalistic style) for TTRPGs. It works for card games because those are a) closed systems (only the cards and the rules matter) that are b) competitive. TTRPGs are neither closed nor competitive, so they shouldn't use the same style of rules.

This style ends up (in my experience) not solving debates (because TTRPGs are open-ended in a way that MTG is not) and only provides fodder for those (GM or player) who wish to weaponize rules against someone else. Rules are not, and should not be, a shield to hide behind when you make an un-fun or antagonistic decision. When you do something obtuse or un-fun, pointing to "RAW says" doesn't help anyone in any way. In addition, writing proper legalistic text is seriously hard--each layer of complexity increases the number of "loopholes" (which are now sanctioned and defended against change as RAW) geometrically. I don't trust the devs (of any game system) to do this right.

Instead, play with people you trust and use your words to communicate. Compromise is required on all sides, as is good faith. Don't hold "the rules say I can, so ..." as a club--use them as guidelines to enhance fun. Above all, remember that the rules were made to help people have fun playing a game. The game was not made for the rules. In a conflict between the two, the rules should give way to fun not vice versa.

In this particular case, the RAW and RAI are both crystal clear. Is it possible for a spell to directly affect more than one creature? If so, twinning is not allowed. Does chain lightning affect more than one creature? Yes. So twinning can't happen.

I understand where you're coming from, but using the same style of rules isn't the issue here. We're talking about clarity. Even when writing poems or songs, which are meant to be interpreted, the writer should say exactly what he means.

If I think the rules work one way, and Crawford (or my DM) thinks differently, I'm going to say the rules aren't clear. That isn't me trying to abuse the system, or compete with other players, or trying to "weaponize" the rules. That's just me being disappointed that the game was unclear.

Not everyone who disagrees is trying to argue, fight, or cheat. I absolutely detest the mindset that says any player who disagrees with the DM is necessarily a dirty rules lawyer. I don't understand why some posters default to that the moment someone disagrees about the rules.

[Easy_Lee]

If you're the DM, take the simplest explanation that makes sense, and run with it.

Your idea of the "simplest explanation that makes sense" will not always agree with mine. If you take the stance that only the DM's idea matters, then I say that doesn't work.

If these discussions haven't proven it to you by now, let me outright state it. Many players are not okay with unnecessary ambiguity. And they aren't wrong for wanting clarity. No cooperative play style is wrong. And telling those players to go play another game is not a solution, let alone a good solution.

As 4e and many other tabletop games prove, it's possible for TRPG rules to be clear. Clarity doesn't detract in any way as long as it's also concise.

I don't have a problem with the rules stating or not stating a thing. What bothers me is when I don't know what the rules are trying to say.

[PeteNutButter]

It does give clarity, if you read it in the way it was intended. "Target" is not used in a technical sense, and shouldn't be read as such. There's no significant ambiguity here--people often ask questions because they either a) don't trust their own reading or b) want to hear a different answer as justification, rather than out of true misunderstanding.

Note--the following is not directed at you, but inspired by this whole discussion
There is a hangover legacy from earlier editions (3.5, mostly) that demands a legalistic reading. That has no place in 5e. If you're parsing words and sentence constructions, you're almost certainly doing it wrong. The rules were not designed to be read that way, and doing so will only make things worse for everybody.

If you're the DM, take the simplest explanation that makes sense, and run with it. If it's causing un-fun, adjust. Most of all, talk about it. If you're the player and you get "nerfed" because of adjustments, take it up after the game. If everybody's trying to help everybody have fun, there's no need to be antagonistic or to insist on "the RAW says." Mutually find what works best for the table. Errors will happen--that's life. Adjust and move on.

There's this fear of OOC conversations about rule elements that seems to crop up all over the place. It's a social game, so talk it out. Find what works best for the group. Don't use rules as a weapon.

I just think you can have both. Rule books are meant to make sense. If the words were crafted to account for both an open ended reading of the rules and for a more legalize reading of the rules there would be no problem.

Better written rules do both.

I return to my barbarian example. It might make sense and feel like the intent of the game that a barbarian add his rage bonus to thrown weapons. Alas he does not. Why? Because rage says melee weapon attack, a strict game term that has a strict meaning including things that do not intuitively fit, like unarmed strikes.

So how do we know when things are and are not game terms? The ability uses target and the spell uses target, so how are we to know that in this case they just mean the concept "target," and not the game term? there is no glossary defining game terms. We have to extract them from the text, sage advice, and errata.

If we apply the idea that there are no game terms, just text, then the barbarian can say, "Well a javelin is a melee weapon, and I'm attacking with it when I'm throwing it. Therefore, it's a melee weapon attack, so I get my rage damage."

I say if one ability refers to something and another ability uses that same word, we should be able to presume they are related, and not just coincidence. I'd argue further that the fact errata's exist at all is because the designers agree with what I'm saying in principle and wish to make their intent reflected more clearly. Rules without clarity aren't rules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not everyone who disagrees is trying to argue, fight, or cheat. I absolutely detest the mindset that says any player who disagrees with the DM is necessarily a dirty rules lawyer. I don't understand why some posters default to that the moment someone disagrees about the rules.

I don't think that I said or implied any such thing. I mentioned both sides--DMs are just as guilty of selective loophole-hunting as players are. ANYONE who tries to weaponize rules (which includes any citation of RAW as a conclusory or binding thing) is in the wrong.

If a player or DM focuses is on doing what the rules say, regardless of what works best for the group (as opposed to doing what works best for the group, using the rules as a guide), they've moved into unsupported territory with this edition and will inevitably run into problems. That's not the rules' fault--it's the inevitable consequence of using a shovel as a hammer. It's a large philosophical shift, to be sure. But a refreshing one, for my taste.

Now since this is off-topic, I'll leave it with that. We've already been over this ground elsewhere, multiple times, and I think we both know what the other's opinion is.

[Easy_Lee]

I don't think that I said or implied any such thing. I mentioned both sides--DMs are just as guilty of selective loophole-hunting as players are. ANYONE who tries to weaponize rules (which includes any citation of RAW as a conclusory or binding thing) is in the wrong.

If a player or DM focuses is on doing what the rules say, regardless of what works best for the group (as opposed to doing what works best for the group, using the rules as a guide), they've moved into unsupported territory with this edition and will inevitably run into problems. That's not the rules' fault--it's the inevitable consequence of using a shovel as a hammer. It's a large philosophical shift, to be sure. But a refreshing one, for my taste.

Now since this is off-topic, I'll leave it with that. We've already been over this ground elsewhere, multiple times, and I think we both know what the other's opinion is.

I don't think there's a single right way to play, but I can tell you this: if we can't agree to stick to a single interpretation on this forum, be it RAW, RAI, or otherwise, then we can't have a discussion. We'll be talking about completely different things.

[DivisibleByZero]

It isn't incomplete.
It's semantics.
Leaping from the target to another creature is the exact same thing as leaping from the primary target to a secondary target, except to a lawyer.
See I disagree. What I referenced before was MTG. In MTG (A game with much clearer rules) if a spell targets something it must explicitly target something. If it doesn't say target, it doesn't target.

Certain cards cannot be targeted. But they can be effected by others that have a method of choice other than target.

I suspect other D&D groups that have a large number of MTG players (former or current) would see it the way I do.

So your defense against my saying that reading this with legalese is the wrong way to handle it, is to invoke the rules and style of a game which quite literally has JUDGES come to events whose sole responsibility is to arbitrate?
Methinks you sailed right past my point.

PPhyre has the right of it. Go read those responses again.

And in case you missed it, my first response to this was:

RAW & RAI: If any spell has the ability to affect multiple creatures, it is not a single target spell.
Note: This is different from actually doing so. I can cast all of my Scorching Rays or lvl5+ Eldritch Blasts at the same target, but since I can *choose* not to if I want, they are not single target spells.

RAC & RAF: Rule whatever the heck you want to for your table.

[PeteNutButter]

So your defense against my saying that reading this with legalese is the wrong way to handle it, is to invoke the rules and style of a game which quite literally has JUDGES come to events whose sole responsibility is to arbitrate?
Methinks you sailed right past my point.

PPhyre has the right of it. Go read those responses again.

And in case you missed it, my first response to this was:

My later point was that game terms exist for a reason and that we should be able to apply them universally. There is no clear guideline in the way rules are written in 5e when something is speaking in strictly game terms or if it is just using general language.

Internal consistency is what I'm asking for here.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I just think you can have both. Rule books are meant to make sense. If the words were crafted to account for both an open ended reading of the rules and for a more legalize reading of the rules there would be no problem.

Better written rules do both.

I return to my barbarian example. It might make sense and feel like the intent of the game that a barbarian add his rage bonus to thrown weapons. Alas he does not. Why? Because rage says melee weapon attack, a strict game term that has a strict meaning including things that do not intuitively fit, like unarmed strikes.

So how do we know when things are and are not game terms? The ability uses target and the spell uses target, so how are we to know that in this case they just mean the concept "target," and not the game term? there is no glossary defining game terms. We have to extract them from the text, sage advice, and errata.

If we apply the idea that there are no game terms, just text, then the barbarian can say, "Well a javelin is a melee weapon, and I'm attacking with it when I'm throwing it. Therefore, it's a melee weapon attack, so I get my rage damage."

I say if one ability refers to something and another ability uses that same word, we should be able to presume they are related, and not just coincidence. I'd argue further that the fact errata's exist at all is because the designers agree with what I'm saying in principle and wish to make their intent reflected more clearly. Rules without clarity aren't rules.

My problem is that you can't do both in the same writing. Legalese is a very different animal than plain writing. No plain writing can survive a legal interpretation--conversely, no legalistic writing will make sense under a plain reading. I'd rather put up with some ambiguity if it means I don't have to constantly cross-reference a glossary of defined terms. Not only that, it ossifies the game in a way that I find unpleasant. Creating content requires working with this constrained vocabulary that may or may not (usually not) fit what you're trying to do. This requires either geometrically increasing glossaries that run the risk of being outdated (like 3.5e's was) or kludges to jam everything into the same terminology (as 4e did, which incurred disconnect between terms and in-universe reality. Can you prone an ooze? In 4e you can.).

[PeteNutButter]

My problem is that you can't do both in the same writing. Legalese is a very different animal than plain writing. No plain writing can survive a legal interpretation--conversely, no legalistic writing will make sense under a plain reading. I'd rather put up with some ambiguity if it means I don't have to constantly cross-reference a glossary of defined terms. Not only that, it ossifies the game in a way that I find unpleasant. Creating content requires working with this constrained vocabulary that may or may not (usually not) fit what you're trying to do. This requires either geometrically increasing glossaries that run the risk of being outdated (like 3.5e's was) or kludges to jam everything into the same terminology (as 4e did, which incurred disconnect between terms and in-universe reality. Can you prone an ooze? In 4e you can.).

So is it your opinion that we cannot extract the target information from the text and put it in the header like other features of spells (such as duration) without negatively affecting the game?

I'm not trying to characterize your point here, genuine clarification.

[Xetheral]

If you're parsing words and sentence constructions, you're almost certainly doing it wrong.

A problem arises when, on a first reading, the meaning of a rule is ambiguous. If parsing the diction and structure is useless, then there would be no "objective" way to decide which of the competing interpretations is superior, particularly if both interpretations are equally simple.

For example, the phrase "melee weapon attack" appears in many places through the book. It could have meant either (a) "an attack with a melee weapon" or (b) "a melee attack with a weapon". From tweets we know that (b) was the intended reading (with additional caveats for unarmed strikes), but just using the language in the book, the two options appear equally plausible. A well-placed hyphen ("melee weapon-attack") would have resolved the ambiguity, but only for those willing to parse the structure of the text.

Out of curiousity, how do you think they should have worded "melee weapon attack" to avoid the ambiguity in meaning? Or are you ok with the ambiguity, even though it means a fundamental aspect of the combat mechanics would require a DM ruling?

Note that despite the tweets, the imprecise language has left related questions unresolved. For example, to my knowledge, there is still no guidance on whether a "melee weapon attack roll" is: (c) "an attack roll made (when attacking) with a melee weapon" or (d) "an (attack) roll made when making a melee weapon-attack". I don't see either of these readings as "simpler" than the other, which is the metric you recommend. I also don't see how reading the phrase without parsing would naturally lead to one conclusion or the other.

I fully agree that RAW should never be used as a weapon. I just don't see how to use your recommended approach to resolve ambiguity when there are multiple equally-simple interpretations.

[DivisibleByZero]

My later point was that game terms exist for a reason and that we should be able to apply them universally. There is no clear guideline in the way rules are written in 5e when something is speaking in strictly game terms or if it is just using general language.

Internal consistency is what I'm asking for here.

No.
What you're asking for is that the rules for the game be written in such a manner as to more closely resemble the 3e/4e style of rules.
But I'm certain that you're completely aware of the fact that WotC has intentionally moved away from that rules philosophy for 5e. You have to be aware of it. You just have to. I mean, even if you haven't figured it out for yourself over the past three plus years, many upon many people have been telling you (and others) for that same amount of time. So you absolutely must be aware of it by now.
So the question becomes: If you are aware that they intentionally moved away from that style of ruleset, why do you (and others) STILL continue to read the rules as if they hadn't?
That makes no sense.

[PeteNutButter]

No.
What you're asking for is that the rules for the game be written in such a manner as to more closely resemble the 3e/4e style of rules.
But I'm certain that you're completely aware of the fact that WotC has intentionally moved away from that rules philosophy for 5e. You have to be aware of it. You just have to. I mean, even if you haven't figured it out for yourself over the past three plus years, many upon many people have been telling you (and others) for that same amount of time. So you absolutely must be aware of it by now.
So the question becomes: If you are aware that they intentionally moved away from that style of ruleset, why do you (and others) STILL continue to read the rules as if they hadn't?
That makes no sense.

Because the designers are doing the same thing. As I said above, Why else would they make errata?

[UrielAwakened]

Just because the designers did it a certain way doesn't mean that way is right or good.

[DivisibleByZero]

Because the designers are doing the same thing. As I said above, Why else would they make errata?

Errata isn't necessary.
Rulings, not rules. That's the design philosophy.
If the player base had accepted that, and ran with it, then zero errata would have ever been needed.
The fact that the player base is stuck in the 3e/4e mindset is the only reason that a single line of errata was ever printed.

Stop reading the rules as if this were 3e/4e (or heaven forbid MtG.... I mean, that's not even a game in the same genre, so how can you compare it one single bit????), and just make rulings at the table, as was intended, and literally no errata would ever have been needed.
Errata wasn't printed because the rules were lacking or incomplete. Errata was printed because the players can't wrap their heads around the entire philosophy of the game design.

[PeteNutButter]

Just because the designers did it a certain way doesn't mean that way is right or good.

I think they realized their intended way of doing it, doesn't really work all that well. As they get flooded with questions via twitter etc. Rules are much more useful (as rules) if they don't require going to the author for clarification.

[PeteNutButter]

Errata isn't necessary.
Rulings, not rules. That's the design philosophy.
If the player base had accepted that, and ran with it, then zero errata would have ever been needed.
The fact that the player base is stuck in the 3e/4e mindset is the only reason that a single line of errata was ever printed.

Stop reading the rules as if this were 3e/4e (or heaven forbid MtG.... I mean, that's not even a game in the same genre, so how can you compare it one single bit????), and just make rulings at the table, as was intended, and literally no errata would ever have been needed.
Errata wasn't printed because the rules were lacking or incomplete. Errata was printed because the players can't wrap their heads around the entire philosophy of the game design.

So enough of the players are doing D&D wrong, that even the designers had to take action, but they are still the ones that are "doing it wrong."

EDIT: I'd say that if something is judging to be lacking by enough people that the designers feel compelled to then make errata, then it is by definition incomplete. They could have tuck to their guns, and issued the statement for players to make rulings. Instead they issue errata.

[DivisibleByZero]

So enough of the players are doing D&D wrong, that even the designers had to take action, but they are still the ones that are "doing it wrong."

If enough people drive the wrong way down a one way street, is it no longer a one way street?

edit to include yours:

EDIT: I'd say that if something is judging to be lacking by enough people that the designers feel compelled to then make errata, then it is by definition incomplete. They could have tuck to their guns, and issued the statement for players to make rulings. Instead they issue errata.

Yes, and issuing errata and using Twitter to answer rules questions were both HUGE mistakes. Because now the players are ingrained and used to reading the rules in a way that the rules were not designed to be read, which is causing all sorts of problems.
Your type made a mistake in reading the rules as legalese when they weren't written that way, and they made a mistake in acknowledging that reading and responding to it in kind.
Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Aett_Thorn]

If enough people drive the wrong way down a one way street, is it no longer a one way street?

I would say that if enough people are driving the wrong way down a one-way street, that at the very least the signage probably isn't clear.

[Sigreid]

I would say that if enough people are driving the wrong way down a one-way street, that at the very least the signage probably isn't clear.

Just putting this out there, I've not had much trouble using the system by taking the text at face value and responding to the text with the same level of interpretation and logic I would apply to a conversation with a friend.

[Aett_Thorn]

Just putting this out there, I've not had much trouble using the system by taking the text at face value and responding to the text with the same level of interpretation and logic I would apply to a conversation with a friend.

I am willing to bet that for each of us, at individual tables there generally aren't problems with this, as eventually people just have discussions about things like normal folk and figure stuff out together. Since individuals at a table likely know each other, discussions can be more about rulings than rules, and you just go from there.

But on a forum like this, it's generally harder to build consensus because we're not all coming from the same place, and are each reading things a bit differently. I have not had a single heated debate about rules with my game group (even though I know that they are using spells or abilities wrong), but here...yeah.

[PeteNutButter]

I am willing to bet that for each of us, at individual tables there generally aren't problems with this, as eventually people just have discussions about things like normal folk and figure stuff out together. Since individuals at a table likely know each other, discussions can be more about rulings than rules, and you just go from there.

But on a forum like this, it's generally harder to build consensus because we're not all coming from the same place, and are each reading things a bit differently. I have not had a single heated debate about rules with my game group (even though I know that they are using spells or abilities wrong), but here...yeah.

I'd agree to this. I can't say I've seen any heated arguments about 5e rules in person, even in AL where everything is supposed to be by the book.

3.5e on the other hand...

At least in that sense, I suppose the designers succeeded.

[Xetheral]

Yes, and issuing errata and using Twitter to answer rules questions were both HUGE mistakes. Because now the players are ingrained and used to reading the rules in a way that the rules were not designed to be read, which is causing all sorts of problems.

Out of curiosity, am I correct in assuming that you see no problem with (for example) the (pre-tweet) ambiguity in the meaning of "melee weapon attack"? (I.e. that it could mean "an attack with a melee weapon" or "a melee attack with a weapon".) You're fine with leaving the resolution of that ambiguity up to DM ruling?

Also, could you please describe what the rules would have to look like before you considered them to be functionally problematic? Or in your mind does "rulings, not rules" by definition preclude the possibiity of the rules being functionally flawed?

[DivisibleByZero]

You seem to have missed my edit to include your edit. Either that, or you ignored it. In case it was the former:
edit to include yours:

EDIT: I'd say that if something is judging to be lacking by enough people that the designers feel compelled to then make errata, then it is by definition incomplete. They could have tuck to their guns, and issued the statement for players to make rulings. Instead they issue errata.

Yes, and issuing errata and using Twitter to answer rules questions were both HUGE mistakes. Because now the players are ingrained and used to reading the rules in a way that the rules were not designed to be read, which is causing all sorts of problems.
Your type made a mistake in reading the rules as legalese when they weren't written that way, and they made a mistake in acknowledging that reading and responding to it in kind.
Two wrongs don't make a right.


I'd agree to this. I can't say I've seen any heated arguments about 5e rules in person, even in AL where everything is supposed to be by the book.

3.5e on the other hand...

At least in that sense, I suppose the designers succeeded.

Yes, and that was the entire purpose.
These debates used to happen at the table, because you could point to seven different pages of five different rule books to extrapolate whatever it was that you were trying to prove worked.
Now this doesn't happen at the table. It only happens on forums.
So obviously the philosophy works.

Maybe we should start acting like it? :smallwink:


Out of curiosity, am I correct in assuming that you see no problem with (for example) the (pre-tweet) ambiguity in the meaning of "melee weapon attack"? (I.e. that it could mean "an attack with a melee weapon" or "a melee attack with a weapon".) You're fine with leaving the resolution of that ambiguity up to DM ruling?

Also, could you please describe what the rules would have to look like before you considered them to be functionally problematic? Or in your mind does "rulings, not rules" by definition preclude the possibiity of the rules being functionally flawed?

To your first point:
It isn't a problem. The DM makes a ruling and the game continues.
It's only a problem in forum debates.

To your second point:
For me to consider them functionally flawed, they would have to be both a) clear enough to only reasonably be read in one single way, and b) that one single way would have to be in direct contradiction of another rule, which also adhered to the first point.
If both (all three, I guess) of those were not true, then it isn't functionally flawed, and instead falls under Rulings, Not Rules.

[Sigreid]

I am willing to bet that for each of us, at individual tables there generally aren't problems with this, as eventually people just have discussions about things like normal folk and figure stuff out together. Since individuals at a table likely know each other, discussions can be more about rulings than rules, and you just go from there.

But on a forum like this, it's generally harder to build consensus because we're not all coming from the same place, and are each reading things a bit differently. I have not had a single heated debate about rules with my game group (even though I know that they are using spells or abilities wrong), but here...yeah.

A reasonable bet. To this I would say I believe that the system was written for the table and not the forum. I tend to dislike systems that are too rigid. It would be fair to say the more rigid the system the harder I will try to break it.

[Aett_Thorn]

DBZ, just because it's better, doesn't mean it's perfect. So pointing out places where they could've done better just hopefully means that 6E is even better, whenever that comes out.

[DivisibleByZero]

DBZ, just because it's better, doesn't mean it's perfect. So pointing out places where they could've done better just hopefully means that 6E is even better, whenever that comes out.

I never implied that it was perfect. Where'd you get that from?
But it's a darned sight better than anything that has come in the past two decades, as far as the rules are concerned.

[PeteNutButter]

Yes, and issuing errata and using Twitter to answer rules questions were both HUGE mistakes. Because now the players are ingrained and used to reading the rules in a way that the rules were not designed to be read, which is causing all sorts of problems.
Your type made a mistake in reading the rules as legalese when they weren't written that way, and they made a mistake in acknowledging that reading and responding to it in kind.
Two wrongs don't make a right.

Meh, at the end of the day it's a business. Satisfying your customers (Or a significant chunk of them) isn't really a mistake.

[Xetheral]

To your first point:
It isn't a problem. The DM makes a ruling and the game continues.
It's only a problem in forum debates.

To your second point:
For me to consider them functionally flawed, they would have to be both a) clear enough to only reasonably be read in one single way, and b) that one single way would have to be in direct contradiction of another rule, which also adhered to the first point.
If both (all three, I guess) of those were not true, then it isn't functionally flawed, and instead falls under Rulings, Not Rules.

Thanks for the reply. For me the (pre-tweet) ambiguity was problematic as a DM, because of the combination of: (1) "melee weapon attack" shows up throughout the rules, and (2) the ruling has an immediate impact on the viability of numerous character builds. Unlike most examples of rulings, not rules, I can't simply decide on the spot because (1) ensures the conseqences are are not limited to the immediate instance. Similarly, I can't wait until the issues arises, because (2) means that the issue is relevant for character creation. The ambiguity was indeed a problem for me as a DM, because doing the research to figure out the effects of my ruling (i.e. combing the book and compiling references to "melee weapon attack") was not how I wanted to spend my campaign prep time. I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, personally, the ambiguity created a problem outside of forum debates.

As to your standard for functionally-flawed, it looks coherent. I would note, however, that the harder to understand that the rules are, the more likely they are to pass your test because they would never be clear enough to have only a single interpretation that causes a conflict. Is that an intentional feature of you test?

[Easy_Lee]

I don't think anyone reads the rules as legalese, but as rules. Games need clear rules, otherwise people aren't on the same field. 5e has rules, we all agree. But the rules aren't always clear. We don't always agree on what to do when encountering unclear rules. And unclear rules are only made clear when they encounter a DM.

We can say that DMs change rules, so not every game is the same. That's true. But if that's the whole story, we can't discuss D&D at all. You're playing chess and I'm playing go. We aren't talking about the same thing.

We can say that most DMs follow the clear rules, and arbitrate on the unclear rules. This is more useful, since we can at least discuss the clear rules.

What isn't useful is to say, "I rule it this way, so therefore that's how it works." Nor is it useful to say, "I wouldn't rule it that way, so therefore that is not how it works." And I don't think it's useful to say, "Crawford doesn't rule it that way, so therefore that's not how it works" either. Crawford himself says his rulings are not rules. The DM always has final say.

[Doug Lampert]

Hi,
We are having discussion about Sorcerer Twinned Spell metamagic.
The definition of twinned , wrote from player handbook (( when you cast a spell that target only one creature and doesn't have range of self ))

The spell chain lighting definition, says :
you create a bolt of lightning that arc toward A target of your choice that you can see within range.
then 3 bolt leap from that target to as many other targets of your choice

If the spell is done on 1 target and leap out of that target ... does it count as multiple target spell - AOE ( ex.: fire ball )?

question is : can a sorcerer twin Chain lightning ?

Thanks
RAW, it has multiple targets as the secondary targets are in fact targets of the spell. They are "other targets" in the quoted text.

I simply don't see the claim that reading it as a MTG card would allow twinning, it says right in the description that the "other targets" are "other targets". How much clearer do you need to be that the spell has multiple targets?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I find "but without clear* rules, we can't have a good forum conversation" to be lacking as a reason for change. I don't want the developers to even consider the effects on forums in making the rules. They should be entirely focused on helping people have fun.

It's perfectly possible to have a text that has any of the following characteristics:

a) ambiguity--more than one reasonable reading that would be playable mechanically.
b) nonsense--zero reasonable readings.
c) missense--only one reasonable reading, but that one makes the game less workable mechancially.
d) clarity--only one reasonable, playable reading.

I find that 5e does a good job of avoiding cases b) and c). The only case I know of for b) is grappler (where part of the feat refers to a rule that doesn't exist). For cases of c), errata is useful to correct the meaning.

Case d) needs no fixing (and is the dominant case in my experience). Case a) requires DM ruling based on the needs of the table. In the case of something that truly has multiple workable meanings, any of those readings is fine if that's what is best for the table.

My big concern is that in trying to reduce the instances of a), you're going to end up with more of b) and c), both of which are pathological. I'm totally fine with having a) and accepting that a DM is going to be involved a lot.

[DivisibleByZero]

b) nonsense--zero reasonable readings.

The only case I know of for b) is grappler (where part of the feat refers to a rule that doesn't exist).

It references a rule that existed in play testing, but was removed from the final game. No one noticed that a feat referenced the rule that was removed, and that the reference therefore needed to be removed, before the first printing.

[Easy_Lee]

I find "but without clear* rules, we can't have a good forum conversation" to be lacking as a reason for change. I don't want the developers to even consider the effects on forums in making the rules. They should be entirely focused on helping people have fun.

Here, I'm not arguing for the game to change. I happen to think clear rules are better, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.

In this thread, I'm arguing for a change in the way we discuss the game. The game assumes a DM to arbitrate. There is no DM here. Therefore, no one gets to state the "correct" ruling on any matter that has more than one reasonable interpretation.

And that isn't to say that people can add willy nilly to the text and pretend it's just as valid. If the text isn't there, it isn't there. I only mean that outright stating what does and does not count as a single target, for instance, is not useful. You aren't the DM; none of us is. So no one gets to make an absolute statement.

[DivisibleByZero]

Here, I'm not arguing for the game to change. I happen to think clear rules are better, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.

In this thread, I'm arguing for a change in the way we discuss the game. The game assumes a DM to arbitrate. There is no DM here. Therefore, no one gets to state the "correct" ruling on any matter that has more than one reasonable interpretation.

And that isn't to say that people can add willy nilly to the text and pretend it's just as valid. If the text isn't there, it isn't there. I only mean that outright stating what does and does not count as a single target, for instance, is not useful. You aren't the DM; none of us is. So no one gets to make an absolute statement.

You know, except when the question being asked and argued about is 100% crystal clear on the subject, as is the case here (and a lot of times, to be honest).
We absolutely can make an absolute statement. Chain Lightning is not a single target spell. Nothing you can say will change the fact that the spell description itself says that it has multiple targets.

[UrielAwakened]

Except a lot of people would argue otherwise.

The casting hits one target. The effect then applies to multiple targets. It still targets one creature.

The casting is what matters intuitively. You don't target a creature with fireball, you target an area.

Honestly it's dumb that there isn't just a target line for every spell. "One creature within 30 ft," "One ally you can touch," "Radius 20 within 100", would be so rudimentary to add.

[DivisibleByZero]

Except a lot of people would argue otherwise.

The casting hits one target. The effect then applies to multiple targets. It still targets one creature.

Read the description of the spell.
There's nothing to argue.
It specifically calls the other targets.... targets. It uses that word. You cannot even attempt to claim that they were unclear about this. But apparently you will anyway. For three pages.

[UrielAwakened]

Yeah that's because spell descriptions in 5e are bad.

With clear targeting rules this spell could easily read "One target" or "One primary target" and then in the effect line talk about how it branches out to more targets, and it would be a one-target spell.

You're illustrating the ambiguity.

[DivisibleByZero]

Yeah that's because spell descriptions in 5e are bad.

With clear targeting rules this spell could easily read "One target" or "One primary target" and then in the effect line talk about how it branches out to more targets, and it would be a one-target spell.

You're illustrating the ambiguity.

There is no ambiguity. None. None what so ever.
It calls them targets, so they are targets. How is this hard for you to understand?

edit:
Even if they did add a "target line" in the spell descriptions, it wouldn't make this any easier to understand. The text still calls them targets, so they would still be targets, and this would still be a multi-target spell.

[UrielAwakened]

"You create a bolt of lightning that arcs toward a target of your choice that you can see within range. "

That's the line that makes me and everyone else interpret it as one target.

It doesn't matter how many targets it affects after you cast it. You cast it on one target. The casting is what matters. Then the spell does its own thing.

[DivisibleByZero]

"You create a bolt of lightning that arcs toward a target of your choice that you can see within range. "

That's the line that makes me and everyone else interpret it as one target.

It doesn't matter how many targets it affects after you cast it. You cast it on one target.

It doesn't matter how many targets you cast it at initially. The description says that anyone affected is a target, because it specifically calls them by that name.

This is exactly the 3e/4e mindset that I was referring to....

[UrielAwakened]

Which was a good mindset because those games had clear rules, and the primary purpose of a ruleset is to be unambiguous.

5e fails that test way too often.

[DivisibleByZero]

Which was a good mindset because those games had clear rules.

First of all, that's subjective.
Secondly, and I'll say it again for about the millionth time over the past few years, this edition was not designed with that kind of rule set in mind. It was not designed to be read that way. So reading it that way, when it wasn't designed to be read that way, is why you're having problems here.
... where none exist.... because it even uses the word targets.

It's ambiguous?
Are you kidding?

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.

At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 7th level or higher, one additional bolt leaps from the first target to another target for each slot level above 6th.

Seriously. Are you kidding?
How could that be any more clear?!?!?

[Xetheral]

There is no ambiguity. None. None what so ever.
It calls them targets, so they are targets. How is this hard for you to understand?

edit:
Even if they did add a "target line" in the spell descriptions, it wouldn't make this any easier to understand. The text still calls them targets, so they would still be targets.

Because Uriel defines "target" differently than you do. For you, it's synonymous with "affect". For Uriel, it's a spellcasting parameter. Your definition has the advantage of simplicty. Uriel's has the advantage of not producing weird results with spells that use the word "target" oddly, such as Fireball, whose "target" might be the point or origin (per AoE rules) or might be the creatures in the AoE (per the spell descripition). Because target is neither defined in the PHB nor used consistently, it's impossible to objectively state that one definition is better than the other. (I'm sure everyone has their own subjective opinion, however.)

[Easy_Lee]

There is no ambiguity. None. None what so ever.
It calls them targets, so they are targets. How is this hard for you to understand?

edit:
Even if they did add a "target line" in the spell descriptions, it wouldn't make this any easier to understand. The text still calls them targets, so they would still be targets.

It depends on how we define the word "targets." I'm serious about that. CL is probably out since you choose the additional "targets", but even the designers can't agree about spells that bounce without the player's input.

Target could mean initial target, total possible targets (Hex would be out), total possible targets at the casting of the spell (Hex is back in, CL is out), total creatures directly affected by the initial casting of the spell (GFB is out), etc.

Furthermore, Twin was errata'd, so not everyone is even reading the same text.

[Lombra]

I agree with DBZ: the spell's effect directly (by directly I mean: it is specified in the spell) targets more than one target, therefore it is invalid for twinned metagic.

We are not playing a game of M:tG here.

But again, I can see DMs enforcing it in different ways because they read it the M:tG way, I just don't share that reading.

[Sigreid]

Because Uriel defines "target" differently than you do. For you, it's synonymous with "affect". For Uriel, it's a spellcasting parameter. Your definition has the advantage of simplicty. Uriel's has the advantage of not producing weird results with spells that use the word "target" oddly, such as Fireball, whose "target" might be the point or origin (per AoE rules) or might be the creatures in the AoE (per the spell descripition). Because target is neither defined in the PHB nor used consistently, it's impossible to objectively state that one definition is better than the other. (I'm sure everyone has their own subjective opinion, however.)

By that logic it's just as valid to say twin spell says the spell can't have more than one target. It does not say 1 initial target.

[DivisibleByZero]

I agree with DBZ: the spell's effect directly (by directly I mean: it is specified in the spell) targets more than one target, therefore it is invalid for twinned metagic.

We are not playing a game of M:tG here.

But again, I can see DMs enforcing it in different ways because they read it the M:tG way, I just don't share that reading.

Exactly.
Rule it however the heck you want to. But do not attempt to argue that it is ambiguous, because it isn't even close to being so. There are plenty upon plenty of things that you could claim are ambiguous in 5e. Chain Lightning being a multi-target spell is not one of them.

[Lombra]

It depends on how we define the word "targets." I'm serious about that. CL is probably out since you choose the additional "targets", but even the designers can't agree about spells that bounce without the player's input.

Target could mean initial target, total possible targets (Hex would be out), total possible targets at the casting of the spell (Hex is back in, CL is out), total creatures directly affected by the initial casting of the spell (GFB is out), etc.

Furthermore, Twin was errata'd, so not everyone is even reading the same text.

By my reading, both Hex and GFB are out. Both can target a different creature from the first one by default. It's less of a mechanics and more of a logic consequence for me, if a spell targets only one creature, then that spell can't have the option of having more or different targets from the first one.

[Easy_Lee]

By my reading, both Hex and GFB are out. Both can target a different creature from the first one by default. It's less of a mechanics and more of a logic consequence for me, if a spell targets only one creature, then that spell can't have the option of having more or different targets from the first one.

That's exactly my point about the word "targets." Until the errata, most people were okay with twin scorching ray or EB as long as the rays were all directed at the same target. Nevermind that what the designers seem to have intended is for twin to only apply to spells that are only ever capable of having one target per casting, the least permissible interpretation of the word.

[DivisibleByZero]

That's exactly my point about the word "targets." Until the errata, most people were okay with twin scorching ray or EB as long as the rays were all directed at the same target. Nevermind that what the designers seem to have intended is for twin to only apply to spells that are only ever capable of having one target per casting, the least permissible interpretation of the word.

Most people? According to whom?
Some people were okay with it, and some were not. If you're going to claim that there wa sa clear majority, you'll need to provide some citation to verify your claim.
No. That's how you read it, and you assumed that you were in the majority, just like you always do. We have never actually had any metric to make a claim like that. Ever. But you do it all the time.
The fact of the matter is that this was a matter of DM Fiat as to what was allowed and what was not, and it was fine that way.

In before: But we're not all playing the same game that way!
We don't have to be. Because Rulings, Not Rules.

[UrielAwakened]

First of all, that's subjective.
Secondly, and I'll say it again for about the millionth time over the past few years, this edition was not designed with that kind of rule set in mind. It was not designed to be read that way. So reading it that way, when it wasn't designed to be read that way, is why you're having problems here.
... where none exist.... because it even uses the word targets.

It's ambiguous?
Are you kidding?


Seriously. Are you kidding?
How could that be any more clear?!?!?

lol @ 5e having bad rules being subjective but said bad rules not being subjective.


Exactly.
Rule it however the heck you want to. But do not attempt to argue that it is ambiguous, because it isn't even close to being so. There are plenty upon plenty of things that you could claim are ambiguous in 5e. Chain Lightning being a multi-target spell is not one of them.

The fact that DMs COULD rule it different is what makes it ambiguous.

[mephnick]

If the spell can effect multiple creatures it cannot be twinned. That is the intent of Twin Spell.

None of this discussion matters because if you rule that Call Lightning can be Twinned you are objectively acting against the intended use of the feature, but that's fine! Rule how you will.

It's not supposed to be twinned. If you let it, and it works fine, great! If you let it and it's obviously unbalanced, change it back.

[Aett_Thorn]

If the spell can effect multiple creatures it cannot be twinned. That is the intent of Twin Spell.

None of this discussion matters because if you rule that Call Lightning can be Twinned you are objectively acting against the intended use of the feature, but that's fine! Rule how you will.

It's not supposed to be twinned. If you let it, and it works fine, great! If you let it and it's obviously unbalanced, change it back.

None of this discussion is about Call Lightning, which can obviously not be twinned, but Chain Lightning, which specifies a single target when cast, but then jumps to other targets.

I'm pretty much on the side of the 'can't be twinned', but I can see how you could argue otherwise.

Edit -> And if I were the DM, I might allow it based on RoC, and since it would eat up a fair amount of Sorcery Points to do. But if I found it to be overpowering, I'd limit it again.

[DivisibleByZero]

The fact that DMs COULD rule it different is what makes it ambiguous.

You missed the point.
The point was that it is not ambiguous in any way, but that you're free to ignore that and make any ruling you wish. That goes for everything in 5e. That goes for everything in TTRPGs, for that matter.

[UrielAwakened]

I think you missed the point.

The fact people disagree and the fact you admitted a DM could rule it any way they want is what makes it ambiguous. DMs generally can't rule things any way they want if they aren't at least somewhat ambiguous without it being a house-rule.

I don't care either way, I'd rather be quickening an Eldritch Blast.

[DivisibleByZero]

I think you missed the point.

The fact people disagree and the fact you admitted a DM could rule it any way they want is what makes it ambiguous. DMs generally can't rule things any way they want if they aren't at least somewhat ambiguous without it being a house-rule.

I don't care either way, I'd rather be quickening an Eldritch Blast.

Nope.
The only reason people disagree is because they want legalese, not because it's ambiguous.
It says they are targets, so they are targets.
Anyone debating otherwise is nothing more than a rules lawyer looking for an argument.

[Easy_Lee]

Exactly.
Rule it however the heck you want to. But do not attempt to argue that it is ambiguous, because it isn't even close to being so. There are plenty upon plenty of things that you could claim are ambiguous in 5e. Chain Lightning being a multi-target spell is not one of them.


Most people? According to whom?
Some people were okay with it, and some were not. If you're going to claim that there wa sa clear majority, you'll need to provide some citation to verify your claim.
No. That's how you read it, and you assumed that you were in the majority, just like you always do. We have never actually had any metric to make a claim like that. Ever. But you do it all the time.
The fact of the matter is that this was a matter of DM Fiat as to what was allowed and what was not, and it was fine that way.

In before: But we're not all playing the same game that way!
We don't have to be. Because Rulings, Not Rules.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt up until you contradicted yourself. In one post, you say there's no ambiguity. In another, you say it is or was a matter of DM fiat as to what's allowed.

READ MY POSTS. I'm not saying CL is completely ambiguous, I'm talking about the word "targets." And you agree with me that it's ambiguous, a matter of DM fiat! Except that you don't agree with me that it's ambiguous, because according to you, there's no possible way someone could come to the conclusion that chain lightning can be Twinned.

You say, "That's how you read it, and you assumed that you were in the majority, just like you always do." Your first quoted post makes an absolute claim. Absolute claims are above a majority opinion. That's you saying this is the way things are.

Don't you EVER post a passioned reply to my comment until you have your own opinion straight. I will textually tear your posts to shreds, DBZ. Calm yourself the flumph down and have a reasonable discussion.

And for the record, I don't care what you think of me. But it's downright embarrassing to watch you hold a grudge against someone you don't even know.

[Aett_Thorn]

Based on just how many questions have gone to Sage Advice about Twin Spell, I'm fairly confident that it falls into the 'ambiguous' column.

[Lombra]

If a spell can affect multiple targets, it is not a single target spell. Does it really need to get more complicated than this?

[DivisibleByZero]

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt up until you contradicted yourself. In one post, you say there's no ambiguity. In another, you say it is or was a matter of DM fiat as to what's allowed.

Every single thing in this game was and is a matter of DM Fiat.
Rulings, Not Rules.

[UrielAwakened]

Nope.
The only reason people disagree is because they want legalese, not because it's ambiguous.
It says they are targets, so they are targets.
Anyone debating otherwise is nothing more than a rules lawyer looking for an argument.

Gamers want rules dude. Clear rules. I want to know Twin Spell works the same at every table no matter where I play.


Every single thing in this game was and is a matter of DM Fiat.
Rulings, Not Rules.

Then why did I pay for a book.

[DivisibleByZero]

Gamers want rules dude. Clear rules. I want to know Twin Spell works the same at every table no matter where I play.

You're kidding, right?
Even in 3e/4e, where the rules were laid out so perfectly in your mind, different tables played differently.
What you want is a CRPG, not a TTRPG.

[Sigreid]

This will be an endless argument since it boils down to different and incompatible expectations and desires for the game.

[UrielAwakened]

I'm pretty sure nothing in 4e was as ambiguous as a casual reading of the 5e spellbook.

The closest was MAYBE how damage types and damage keywords worked and we got clear errata about that. I guess push effects in 3D combat were a bit hazy towards the beginning too. Everything else was well-defined.

I knew what a target was. I knew who the target was. I knew when I added my damage modifier and when I didn't. I knew what an expected skill DC was at any given level.

It was nice. It was like someone put time into designing it and thought about corner-case scenarios and how different mechanics would work together.

[DivisibleByZero]

I'm pretty sure nothing in 4e was as ambiguous as a casual reading of the 5e spellbook.

The closest was MAYBE how damage types and damage keywords worked and we got clear errata about that. I guess push effects in 3D combat were a bit hazy towards the beginning too. Everything else was well-defined.

And 5e made an active an d intentional move away from that style of rule set.
You don't like that. We get it. But continuing to read the rules as if they operated under an old philosophy is why you're having these troubles.
It isn't a problem with the rules. It's a problem with your expectations.

[UrielAwakened]

I'm pretty sure they're not rules then, they're suggestions.

Suggestions you pay for.

[Sigreid]

I'm pretty sure they're not rules then, they're suggestions.

Suggestions you pay for.

The more accurate term would be guidelines. And that's what they represent themselves as.

[Aett_Thorn]

Can we just all agree that the English language is awful and makes things needlessly ambiguous, and go home?

[mephnick]

If a spell can affect multiple targets, it is not a single target spell. Does it really need to get more complicated than this?

It does if you're a player that is for some inane reason trying to get an unfair competitive advantage in a cooperative game by twisting language around!

[UrielAwakened]

Or if you just want clarity.

It could just be you want clarity.

[Lombra]

I'm pretty sure nothing in 4e was as ambiguous as a casual reading of the 5e spellbook.

The closest was MAYBE how damage types and damage keywords worked and we got clear errata about that. I guess push effects in 3D combat were a bit hazy towards the beginning too. Everything else was well-defined.

I knew what a target was. I knew who the target was. I knew when I added my damage modifier and when I didn't. I knew what an expected skill DC was at any given level.

It was nice. It was like someone put time into designing it and thought about corner-case scenarios and how different mechanics would work together.


If a spell can affect multiple targets, it is not a single target spell. Does it really need to get more complicated than this?

Do I have to cite someone to make my posts read?

Yes. 5e is a collection of rules to support the game. Any table can pick any rule and bend it however it wants, because we're humans that can decide how to have fun even when not strictly adhering to RAW.

[UrielAwakened]

Personally I'd let it happen as a DM just because they really screwed up the Sorcerer and I feel like they should get away with more.

Let em twin anything. Who cares.

[DivisibleByZero]

I'm pretty sure they're not rules then, they're suggestions.

Suggestions you pay for.

My good man, I think he's finally got the philosophy!

[UrielAwakened]

My good man, I think he's finally got the philosophy!

Yeah that is objectively bad game design.

[DivisibleByZero]

Yeah that is objectively subjectively bad game design.

fixed it for ya

[UrielAwakened]

Why is it people who have never studied a field always think said field is subjective?

Is psychology subjective too?

What is fun is subjective. What is good game design is much less so.

Ambiguous rules are not good game design. It's why modern magic cards are much better-worded than the 20-year old ones. We've advanced.

[Lombra]

It does if you're a player that is for some inane reason trying to get an unfair competitive advantage in a cooperative game by twisting language around!

Makes sense I guess. The competitive vibe of some people tears the community, I think that it is a real issue to be honest.

[Easy_Lee]

Makes sense I guess. The competitive vibe of some people tears the community, I think that it is a real issue to be honest.

Competitiveness is not a crime, nor is it bad for the community. If you hate competitiveness, you may as well hate masculinity and men in general.

My fun vs your fun. I don't have a problem with competitiveness at the table as long as everyone is polite and plays by the same rules.

[Sigreid]

Why is it people who have never studied a field always think said field is subjective?

Is psychology subjective too?

What is fun is subjective. What is good game design is much less so.

Ambiguous rules are not good game design. It's why modern magic cards are much better-worded than the 20-year old ones. We've advanced.

Studies psych foe a couple of years and they were clear it was a discipline and not a science, so yeah to an extent.

And 5e is subjectively good game design to someone like myself.

[DivisibleByZero]

Why is it people who have never studied a field always think said field is subjective?

Is psychology subjective too?

The fact that each table is different, and will operate differently depending on the needs of said table, would be one argument that this philosophy could be considered good game design.
Therefore, it cannot possibly be objectively bad.
Remember, we're talking about a social role playing game, not a card game.

If we were having this discussion about MtG, I would agree that it would objectively be bad.
We're not talking about a card game, we're talking about a role playing game. Hard and fast rules go out the window based on the table's needs.
They realized this, and went back to a more free form rules style.

This is not objectively bad, as you claim. Far from it.
It's value is subjective.
I know at our table, it is subjectively fantastic. You disagree. That's fine.
But it is not objective in any way.

[Lombra]

Why is it people who have never studied a field always think said field is subjective?

Is psychology subjective too?

What is fun is subjective. What is good game design is much less so.

Ambiguous rules are not good game design. It's why modern magic cards are much better-worded than the 20-year old ones. We've advanced.

Both design and psychology are subjective by definition, but are generalizable to a useful extent, so they see effective applications on wide samples of subjects.

The rules written in 5e are clearly designed with the wiggle room of DM interpretation in mind, but, one can play by the book RAW and never come across issues of ambiguity.

On this topic for example, RAW you can't twin CL, but that does not mean that DMs can't rule it otherwise, because the free interpretation of the DM is a key element in the design of 5e.

[Aett_Thorn]

The fact that each table is different, and will operate differently depending on the needs of said table, would be one argument that this philosophy could be considered good game design.
Therefore, it cannot possibly be objectively bad.
Remember, we're talking about a social role playing game, not a card game.

If we were having this discussion about MtG, I would agree that it would objectively be bad.
We're not talking about a card game, we're talking about a role playing game. Hard and fast rules go out the window based on the table's needs.
They realized this, and went back to a more free form rules style.

This is not objectively bad, as you claim. Far from it.
It's value is subjective.
I know at our table, it is subjectively fantastic. You disagree. That's fine.
But it is not objective in any way.

Well, on the flip side of that, I would say that for house games, having some flexibility to suit the wants/needs of the table is probably a good thing. For something like AL, however, where you want the tables to have similar/same rules, then having this same flexibility is a bad thing. Considering that DMs and players can basically ignore rules if they don't like them anyways, I'd say that leaving things ambiguous for AL is bad design.

However, since I don't play AL, I personally don't care. But I can understand how others might.

[DivisibleByZero]

The rules written in 5e are clearly designed with the wiggle room of DM interpretation in mind, but, one can play by the book RAW and never come across issues of ambiguity.

On this topic for example, RAW you can't twin CL, but that does not mean that DMs can't rule it otherwise, because the free interpretation of the DM is a key element in the design of 5e.

Precisely.
Bt this doesn't mean that Twinning Chain Lightning is ambiguous. It is not. It just means that DMs can make alterations to the rules as they see fit.
Rule 0 is in full effect in 5e. It's a core principle of the design. But some people have a problem with that.

You might almost say that it's.... subjective.

[Lombra]

Competitiveness is not a crime, nor is it bad for the community. If you hate competitiveness, you may as well hate masculinity and men in general.

My fun vs your fun. I don't have a problem with competitiveness at the table as long as everyone is polite and plays by the same rules.

Who are you competing against at the table, exactly? (Honest question) Generalizing competitivity to men isn't a smart move to be honest. We don't want a sexism branch of the discussion, do we?

[PeteNutButter]

Well, on the flip side of that, I would say that for house games, having some flexibility to suit the wants/needs of the table is probably a good thing. For something like AL, however, where you want the tables to have similar/same rules, then having this same flexibility is a bad thing. Considering that DMs and players can basically ignore rules if they don't like them anyways, I'd say that leaving things ambiguous for AL is bad design.


I do play AL, and the very fact that a character can be built around certain features that are entirely subjective to DM, is objectively bad game design.


Who are you competing against at the table, exactly? (Honest question) Generalizing competitivity to men isn't a smart move to be honest. We don't want a sexism branch of the discussion, do we?

OOP! Is the fact that there are psychological differences between men and women subjective or objective? lolololol

[Sigreid]

I do play AL, and the very fact that a character can be built around certain features that are entirely subjective to DM, is objectively bad game design.

Incorrect. It's just bad for your chosen implementation. It's good for mine.

[PeteNutButter]

Incorrect. It's just bad for your chosen implementation. It's good for mine.

Yep, objectively bad for my implementation of sanctioned, recognized by Wizards play.

[UrielAwakened]

Why are vague rules better for your implementation?

Why are vague rules better for literally anyone? If the rules were less-vague would you actually be complaining about it or would you just be okay with it because it's D&D and you're fine with any game-design decisions Wizards makes after that no-good darned 4e came along?

I seriously have to ask how much of the questionable 5e game design is given a pass by people who are just happy to feel recognized again.

[Lombra]

Well, on the flip side of that, I would say that for house games, having some flexibility to suit the wants/needs of the table is probably a good thing. For something like AL, however, where you want the tables to have similar/same rules, then having this same flexibility is a bad thing. Considering that DMs and players can basically ignore rules if they don't like them anyways, I'd say that leaving things ambiguous for AL is bad design.

However, since I don't play AL, I personally don't care. But I can understand how others might.

There is no ambiguity in what's written. There's ambiguity among players for what's the most fun and intreasting way to play the game. And since it is an irresolvable problem, 5e decided to implement it as a design feature, keeping the frame simple enough to work with basically any ruling. This is good design. A game that can't collapse on itself when people try to adjust it to their needs. A flexible, but resilient system with which anyone can have fun.

[UrielAwakened]

There is no ambiguity in what's written. There's ambiguity among players for what's the most fun and intreasting way to play the game. And since it is an irresolvable problem, 5e decided to implement it as a design feature, keeping the frame simple enough to work with basically any ruling. This is good design. A game that can't collapse on itself when people try to adjust it to their needs. A flexible, but resilient system with which anyone can habe fun.

Unless they want clear rules, of course.

[DivisibleByZero]

I do play AL, and the very fact that a character can be built around certain features that are entirely subjective to DM, is objectively bad game design.
Incorrect. It's just bad for your chosen implementation. It's good for mine.
Yep, objectively bad for my implementation of sanctioned, recognized by Wizards play.

The point was this:
If it is bad for your group, and bad for someone else's, and good for my group, and good for someone else's.... all simultaneously.... then that makes it subjective.

[Easy_Lee]

Who are you competing against at the table, exactly? (Honest question) Generalizing competitivity to men isn't a smart move to be honest. We don't want a sexism branch of the discussion, do we?

It's not sexism. Competitiveness is a traditionally masculine trait (not male, masculine), and men are generally masculine. Neither statement is sexist. But what I'm saying that a policy against competitiveness is an indirectly sexist policy in exactly the same way as a height requirement would be.

For the sake of D&D, I encourage you not to try to run off your masculine players.

Players can compete with each other for most kills, strongest attack, and so on while still cooperating when it's important. There are many ways to compete without fighting, and it often benefits the group for members to be competitive.

Additionally, competitive players are absolutely paying attention. And paying attention is the most important thing.

I suspect you and I may not mean the same thing by the word "competitive."

[Lombra]

Unless they want clear rules, of course.

The rules are clear. There is no ambiguity or vagueness in what's written in the book. You can play strictly RAW and you can have fun with it. Many people do it, myself included.

[UrielAwakened]

The rules are clear. There is no ambiguity or vagueness in what's written in the book. You can play strictly RAW and you can have fun with it. Many people do it, myself included.

What's the skill DC to climb an oiled rope again.

Again, the point everyone keeps missing is it's not a vagueness in what is written.

It's a vagueness in what they didn't bother to write down.

Like a "Target" line.

[Aett_Thorn]

The rules are clear. There is no ambiguity or vagueness in what's written in the book. You can play strictly RAW and you can have fun with it. Many people do it, myself included.

Maybe not in this particular example, but there are plenty of places in the book where there is no clear RAW. Not sure if you were just talking about this example or not, but there's plenty of ambiguity in the PHB. It's just that most of us can work around it.

[Lombra]

It's not sexism. Competitiveness is a traditionally masculine trait (not male, masculine), and men are generally masculine. Neither statement is sexist. But what I'm saying that a policy against competitiveness is an indirectly sexist policy in exactly the same way as a height requirement would be.

For the sake of D&D, I encourage you not to try to run off your masculine players.

Players can compete with each other for most kills, strongest attack, and so on while still cooperating when it's important. There are many ways to compete without fighting, and it often benefits the group for members to be competitive.

Additionally, competitive players are absolutely paying attention. And paying attention is the most important thing.

I suspect you and I may not mean the same thing by the word "competitive."

I understand what you mean, but appearently am not masculine enough to share the joy of being the highest DPR character in a cooperative party composed of different characters with different roles and objectives :biggrin:

I just don't find that kind of competitiveness healthy.

[UrielAwakened]

I understand what you mean, but appearently am not masculine enough to share the joy of being the highest DPR character in a cooperative party composed of different characters with different roles and objectives :biggrin:

I just don't find that kind of competitiveness healthy.

Generally speaking all of my best players have been the most competitive. They tend to care the most.

The ones there for the social experience are almost always replaceable and if they weren't my friends I probably would replace them.

[Sigreid]

Why are vague rules better for your implementation?

Why are vague rules better for literally anyone? If the rules were less-vague would you actually be complaining about it or would you just be okay with it because it's D&D and you're fine with any game-design decisions Wizards makes after that no-good darned 4e came along?

I seriously have to ask how much of the questionable 5e game design is given a pass by people who are just happy to feel recognized again.

The rules as they are written in this edition are better for me for a few reasons.

There's no arguing about the interaction of different rules. I've seriously seen friendship ending fights over how rules interact in 3.x.

It plays smoother at the table with a he'll of a lot less looking things up.

I don't find them to be unclear when people aren't trying to bend them.

Top 3

[DivisibleByZero]

What's the skill DC to climb an oiled rope again.

Again, the point everyone keeps missing is it's not a vagueness in what is written.

It's a vagueness in what they didn't bother to write down.

Like a "Target" line.

This is what I was talking about.
You're bringing external complaints into this which aren't relevant.
No one cares if you don't like that there isn't a set table for ability check DCs. It's not relevant to the conversation at hand. But you're so frustrated with the general design philosophy of 5e that you're projecting it into situations where it isn't applicable.
There is no need for a "Target" line, because the description makes it clear whether something is a target or not, with no ambiguity.

[UrielAwakened]

This is what I was talking about.
You're bringing external complaints into this which aren't relevant.
No one cares if you don't like that there isn't a set table for ability check DCs. It's not relevant to the conversation at hand. But you're so frustrated with the general design philosophy of 5e that you're projecting it into situations where it isn't applicable.
There is no need for a "Target" line, because the description makes it clear whether something is a target or not, with no ambiguity.

It is applicable here though.

Because it's not clear.

[Xetheral]

The rules written in 5e are clearly designed with the wiggle room of DM interpretation in mind, but, one can play by the book RAW and never come across issues of ambiguity.

(Emphasis added.) I completely disagree with the italicized claim. Hiding rules, for example, were written with deliberate ambiguity according to the hiding podcast. So the moment you come across the hding rules, you've come across ambiguity (by design). Unless you think they tried and failed to make the hiding rules ambiguous?

Moreover, the example I gave upthread regarding the definition of "melee weapon attacks" is another example of ambiguity in the RAW. Without developer insight, there is no way to unambiguously determine whether the phrase means (a) "an attack with a melee weapon" or "a melee attack with a weapon".

[UrielAwakened]

(Emphasis added.) I completely disagree with the italicized claim. Hiding rules, for example, were written with deliberate ambiguity according to the hiding podcast. So the moment you come across the hding rules, you've come across ambiguity (by design). Unless you think they tried and failed to make the hiding rules ambiguous?

Moreover, the example I gave upthread regarding the definition of "melee weapon attacks" is another example of ambiguity in the RAW. Without developer insight, there is no way to unambiguously determine whether the phrase means (a) "an attack with a melee weapon" or "a melee attack with a weapon".

Yeah, to add to that, too many players (and DMs) aren't aware that all of a monster's melee attacks are melee weapon attacks by default.

That's another great example that did not need to be vague.

This wouldn't matter but spells like Frostbite and Chain Lightning become better or worse depending on what your DM allows and nobody wants to be sitting at a table feeling less-effective than they thought they would be when they imagined their character.

[Easy_Lee]

I think we all agree that the game is not always perfectly clear. My position is that those cases are for the DM. As none of us is the DM of this forum, I wish people would be just a little more respectful of each other's rulings.

Just about every debate I've ever been in on these forums involved me saying "this is a possible interpretation" and someone else saying "no it isn't."

[DivisibleByZero]

It is applicable here though.

Because it's not clear.

The spell description calls out the other targets AS OTHER TARGETS and refers to the FIRST TARGET as a separate entity on three separate occasions, each.
How much clearer do you need it to be?
Explain to me how that is in any way ambiguous or unclear.

[Lombra]

What's the skill DC to climb an oiled rope again.

Again, the point everyone keeps missing is it's not a vagueness in what is written.

It's a vagueness in what they didn't bother to write down.

Like a "Target" line.

I hate to answer to a question with a question, but: do you need for a book to cover every possible (and unlimited, because that's the beauty of ttrpgs) combination of ideas? There are videogames to play without a DM, D&D 5e is designed with prominent DM intervention. It simpligies the job of everyone.


Maybe not in this particular example, but there are plenty of places in the book where there is no clear RAW. Not sure if you were just talking about this example or not, but there's plenty of ambiguity in the PHB. It's just that most of us can work around it.

I was mostly referring to this specific issue, but generally, unless weird combinations of event happen, there aren't ambiguous scenarios from the PHB that come to my mind honestly, and I'm totally aware that there are, although these don't prefent you from playing the game.


Generally speaking all of my best players have been the most competitive. They tend to care the most.

The ones there for the social experience are almost always replaceable and if they weren't my friends I probably would replace them.

In a 3 pillar game there should be room to shine for everyone, most games revolve around combat, which is understandable and explains the "competitivity" of the players, roll dies and see who wins, it appeals to many, but I tend to enjoy good social and exploration encounters too.

In the and all that matters is the table fun, that's the real subjective topic here :biggrin:

[UrielAwakened]

The spell description calls out the other targets AS OTHER TARGETS and refers to the FIRST TARGET as a separate entity on three separate occasions, each.
How much clearer do you need it to be?
Explain to me how that is in any way ambiguous or unclear.

You cast it on one target.


I hate to answer to a question with a question, but: do you need for a book to cover every possible (and unlimited, because that's the beauty of ttrpgs) combination of ideas? There are videogames to play without a DM, D&D 5e is designed with prominent DM intervention. It simpligies the job of everyone.

When I have a DM I want to know that he's going to run a game with the same rules as other DMs.

As such I want a general guideline for how hard something is to do.

Some DMs think climbing an oiled rope is a super-human feat when real people do it all the time.

I don't find climbing oiled rope DCs to be one of those things that are so essential to the D&D experience that having a DM screw it up ruins the game for me but it is part of a general trend that D&D 5e does not making being a good DM easy.

[DivisibleByZero]

You cast it on one target.

.... and it jumps to other targets, as per the description of the spell. So how is that unclear as not being a single target spell?

[UrielAwakened]

.... and it jumps to other targets, as per the description of the spell. So how is that unclear as not being a single target spell?

Because it targets one creature. Ice Knife targets one creature and can be twinned even though it affects multiple creatures.

We've been over this a lot and you don't get why it's ambiguous and I don't really care at this point. You're exhausting. The rules are inconsistent between two spells, both of which have one target and affect multiple creatures.

Now go away.

[Doug Lampert]

If a spell can affect multiple targets, it is not a single target spell. Does it really need to get more complicated than this?

More to the point, the ONLY EFFECT of twin spell is to allow a spell to target two creatures. That's all it has ever said it does.

Even if you accept that targeting only one creature or initially targeting only one creature makes a spell a single target spell, what do would twin spell will do for such a spell? It just returns a capability you already had and declared you weren't using. If a spell can already target two or more creatures, then by a pure legalistic reading, twin spell would have no beneficial effect and be a pure waste of sorcery points. The ambiguity for twin all comes out of casual readings, not legalistic readings. RAW and RAI actually match if you truly do a legalistic reading.

It's casual readings that cause the problem here.


It does if you're a player that is for some inane reason trying to get an unfair competitive advantage in a cooperative game by twisting language around!

I think it mostly happens because people read casually, not because they're trying for an unfair advantage. You read twin spell and you think that it casts the spell twice if the spell targets a single foe, then you'd expect it to work on things like Scorching Ray if you target all rays on a single foe. That's not what twin says, if it cast twice then you couldn't use it on concentration spells. But as a casual explanation to a non-D&D gamer that's almost certainly what I'd say it does if I hadn't seen 50 or so twin arguments on the web. It's the natural interpretation of that text.

And people remember the interpretation, not the text.

For another example of reading, interpreting, and then remembering and talking about the interpretation. Witness this entire thread where the word TARGET is used all through a spell and it refers repeatedly to "ADDITIONAL TARGETS" and yet people are trying to claim there's only one target. They're not lying, they've got an idea in their head of what the words mean and that's what they remember. The fact that the very first post included the words "Other Targets" only registers if you read carefully.

Legalistic might fix this, but it won't fix everything. Look at all the dysfunctional rules threads on 3.5, there doesn't seem to be an equivalent for 5th, which means they did something right.

[Lombra]

Because it targets one creature. Ice Knife targets one creature and can be twinned even though it affects multiple creatures.

We've been over this a lot and you don't get why it's ambiguous and I don't really care at this point. You're exhausting. The rules are inconsistent between two spells, both of which have one target and affect multiple creatures.

Now go away.

Ice knife can be twinned? Since when?

[UrielAwakened]

Ice knife can be twinned? Since when?

Sage Advice says so.

EDIT: I misremembered. Okay it's not inconsistent between the two spells.

It's still poorly worded.

EDIT2: Okay now I'm seeing conflicting things online again about Ice Knife, I didn't think I was crazy.

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

Mike Mearls said yes in the past.

Since Jeremy Crawford gave that terrible ruling on how Lucky works I'd probably say yes to twinning Ice Knife too, just out of spite for him. He seems to always pick the dumbest possible ruling and runs with that.

[DivisibleByZero]

Because it targets one creature. Ice Knife targets one creature and can be twinned even though it affects multiple creatures.

We've been over this a lot and you don't get why it's ambiguous and I don't really care at this point. You're exhausting. The rules are inconsistent between two spells, both of which have one target and affect multiple creatures.

Now go away.

According to whom can Ice Knife be Twinned?
Because according to JC, it cannot be Twinned. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/04/11/can-i-use-twinned-spell-on-ice-knife/)

Draconis @DerynDraconis
@JeremyECrawford Can I use Twinned Spell on Ice Knife? (lot of confusion because it calls "target" only one creature, but then ice explodes)

Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford
No.


Sage Advice says so.

EDIT: I misremembered. Okay it's not inconsistent between the two spells.

It's still poorly worded.

No, it isn't poorly worded. This is exactly what I was talking about with projecting.
All this does is further reinforce our point.
Ice Knife doesn't even use the word Target for the secondary damage, and it cannot be Twinned. So what makes you think a spell that actually uses that word can be?

[Lombra]

Sage Advice says so.

EDIT: I misremembered. Okay it's not inconsistent between the two spells.

It's still poorly worded.

I just don't understand what makes you believe that, because of the fact that targets happen on subsequent triggers, they don't count towards the target count of the spell. More than one ctreature can be the target of that spell, hence, the spell can target multiple creatures, therefore, it can't be twinned.

Edit because of edit: even going the Mearls' way, CL does specify "target" for the new targets.

[UrielAwakened]

Because it targets one creature. It says so.

The secondary effect is not you targeting those creatures. The spell is acting on its own after you cast it.

Ice Knife is actually more-directly a better argument for targeting multiple creatures than Chain Lightning and apparently there's been controversy among the game designers themselves how that one works.

[DivisibleByZero]

Because it targets one creature. It says so.

The secondary effect is not you targeting those creatures. The spell is acting on its own after you cast it.

Every spell which doesn't require concentration acts on its own after you cast it, and even some that do.
Not buying what you're selling.

[UrielAwakened]

Every spell which doesn't require concentration acts on its own after you cast it, and even some that do.
Not buying what you're selling.

Cleaning up what I wrote because I forgot how scrub happy this place gets.

Again, as much as I can't stand him, I'll take Mike Mearls first impressions on an effect ruling than Jeremy Crawford who consistently seems to put his pants on backwards when it comes to these things.

[PeteNutButter]

Ice Knife is actually more-directly a better argument for targeting multiple creatures than Chain Lightning and apparently there's been controversy among the game designers themselves how that one works.

Green-flame blade is one of the best spells to have this debate. It clearly targets one creature, but then has a rider that hits another.

I'd imagine there are DMs out there that would rule that GFB and Ice Knife are twinnable, but not Chain Lightning.

Or that GFB is, but the other two aren't, etc. All of that would be obvious if they just included a Target: in spells descriptions. :smalltongue:

[Aett_Thorn]

I would really like to say that I think it's more Twinned Spell that is the more ambiguous effect here, especially with all of the Sage Advice rulings on the matter.

Ice Knife only targets one creature, yet can't be twinned (because of the AoE effect that isn't really target-based).

Can you Twin Hex? You only ever "target" the first target, and from then on you can move Hex to a new creature, but you never specifically target the new creature.

Can you twin Maximillian's Earthen Grasp, considering that it can affect multiple creatures over its duration? Amazingly, JC takes two swings at this somehow makes it more unclear: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/09/can-a-spell-like-maximilians-earthen-grasp-or-telekinesis-be-twinned/

Do you take the stance, along with JC, that if the spell has the possibility of "affecting" more than one creature, that it can't be twinned? Or is it what the target of the spell says?

When you twin something like Witch Bolt, how does the next turn's action damage work? Do both targets take the damage, or can you only do one at a time?


JC and team certainly had an intention for how this metamagic worked, but the fact that they needed an official errata (which is actually in my version of the PHB) and multiple sage advice rulings I would say leaves these rulings rather unclear and open for a lot of DM fiat.

[UrielAwakened]

That's probably true actually.

And that's again probably true because the Sorcerer was so rushed.

Also that Jeremy Crawford answer on MEG is straight-up garbage, and is exhibit B in my case entitled, "Nobody should listen to Jeremy Crawford ever."

[PeteNutButter]

I would really like to say that I think it's more Twinned Spell that is the more ambiguous effect here, especially with all of the Sage Advice rulings on the matter.

Ice Knife only targets one creature, yet can't be twinned (because of the AoE effect that isn't really target-based).

Can you Twin Hex? You only ever "target" the first target, and from then on you can move Hex to a new creature, but you never specifically target the new creature.

Can you twin Maximillian's Earthen Grasp, considering that it can affect multiple creatures over its duration? Amazingly, JC takes two swings at this somehow makes it more unclear: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/09/can-a-spell-like-maximilians-earthen-grasp-or-telekinesis-be-twinned/

Do you take the stance, along with JC, that if the spell has the possibility of "affecting" more than one creature, that it can't be twinned? Or is it what the target of the spell says?

When you twin something like Witch Bolt, how does the next turn's action damage work? Do both targets take the damage, or can you only do one at a time?


JC and team certainly had an intention for how this metamagic worked, but the fact that they needed an official errata (which is actually in my version of the PHB) and multiple sage advice rulings I would say leaves these rulings rather unclear and open for a lot of DM fiat.

The answer to all these questions is a question: "Is this sorcerer a pure sorcerer?" If the answer is yes, then allow the twinning of all of them.

If they happen to be a paladin/sorcerer then LET NOTHING BE TWINNED!

[UrielAwakened]

As long as Warlocks are exempt from that I'm fine with it.

[Sigreid]

So, I just got home and looked up the exact wording of twinned spell. It closes out with "To be eligible for twinned spell, the spell must be incapable of targeting more than on creature at the spells current level."

That doesn't seem ambiguous at all to me.

[Pex]

Twin lets you concentrate on two different effects at the same time. It doesn't cast two spells, it just doubles the effect of a single spell. Concentrating on that single spell can maintain the effect on multiple targets through twinning, just as using hold person on multiple targets only requires a single instance of concentration.

As for twinning chain lightning, just do what you want honestly. D&D works better when you don't worry so much about the rules in the first place.

Actually no because people don't tend to ask what rules are we playing with this time. I get to Twin Chain Lightning at one table. What happens when I play at another table but then I can't? As a sorcerer I might have chosen Disintegrate instead. I might not have taken Twinned. I might not have played a bronze dragon based sorcerer. Lack of consistency of rules is a failing of 5E. Doesn't ruin the game. Doesn't make it unplayable, but it is a failing.

Rulings instead of rules doesn't work.

[Aett_Thorn]

So, I just got home and looked up the exact wording of twinned spell. It closes out with "To be eligible for twinned spell, the spell must be incapable of targeting more than on creature at the spells current level."

That doesn't seem ambiguous at all to me.

Ice Knife only targets one creature, yet is apparently incapable of twinning. While yes, Chain Lightning to most of us is pretty squarely in the "can't be twinned" section, there's enough ambiguity there since the player can only chose one target of the spell. I'm not saying that I'd buy that, but I'm also unsure of how much I'd really enforce that on some types of spells that they have 'officially' ruled out.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ice Knife only targets one creature, yet is apparently incapable of twinning. While yes, Chain Lightning to most of us is pretty squarely in the "can't be twinned" section, there's enough ambiguity there since the player can only chose one target of the spell. I'm not saying that I'd buy that, but I'm also unsure of how much I'd really enforce that on some types of spells that they have 'officially' ruled out.

It requires a particularly blinkered reading (stopping after the first phrase) of Chain Lightning to see it as anything other than a multiple-target spell. People can choose selective readings (usually out of a desire to win) regardless of the clarity or lack there-of of the text. Just look at legal proceedings. Even with the best-crafted contracts there are people looking for loopholes, sometimes successfully. No human text is immune to this.

There will always be ambiguity. No natural language (ie non-computer language) can ever be free of it. All you can do is shift individual cases from multiple reasonable readings (ambiguity) to some combination of

* 0 reasonable, playable readings (nonsense)
* 1 reasonable, unplayable reading (missense)
* 1 reasonable, playable reading (clarity).

I would rate clarity >~ ambiguity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense > missense. That makes adding even one more missense or nonsense case much worse than gaining 10 cases of clarity.

I rate clarity and ambiguity close together because ambiguity allows creativity and multiple readings in different contexts. Clarity can be restrictive, since only situations explicitly handled can be clear.

To have total clarity, you'd need to lose the open-ended nature of TTRPGs. That's throwing away the most important part, the part that separates them from CRPGs (which often have better writing, always have better graphics and can handle more complex mechanics). For what? The few people who find talking to their table about rules before and during character creation an imposition?

[Pex]

No.
What you're asking for is that the rules for the game be written in such a manner as to more closely resemble the 3e/4e style of rules.
But I'm certain that you're completely aware of the fact that WotC has intentionally moved away from that rules philosophy for 5e. You have to be aware of it. You just have to. I mean, even if you haven't figured it out for yourself over the past three plus years, many upon many people have been telling you (and others) for that same amount of time. So you absolutely must be aware of it by now.
So the question becomes: If you are aware that they intentionally moved away from that style of ruleset, why do you (and others) STILL continue to read the rules as if they hadn't?
That makes no sense.

We can be aware of it and disagree it was the right direction to take. 3E/4E style of rules could actually be a good thing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

We can be aware of it and disagree it was the right direction to take. 3E/4E style of rules could actually be a good thing.

That's a matter of taste and personal preference. On this we disagree (intractably so).

And the point wasn't that they could change the rules to be more like 3E/4E. It was that they haven't, so reading them as if they had is wrong and is the source of the problems. Whether or not changing them would be good, they are what they are. Treat them that way, and the problem goes away (mostly). Refuse to treat them the way they were written, and the consequential breaking is on you, not on the rules. Don't use a shovel as a hammer and then get mad at the manufacturer for not making a good hammer.

[Pex]

The rules as they are written in this edition are better for me for a few reasons.

There's no arguing about the interaction of different rules. I've seriously seen friendship ending fights over how rules interact in 3.x.

It plays smoother at the table with a he'll of a lot less looking things up.

I don't find them to be unclear when people aren't trying to bend them.

Top 3

How hard is it to climb a tree?

Does Great Weapon Style work on Paladin Smite damage?

Who determines the creatures summoned with the various conjure spells?

Sage Advice has its rulings. You have your rulings. Other DMs have different rulings. To you it's a feature. To others it's a bug. We agree what 5E is about rules; we disagree that was a good thing.

[Sigreid]

Ice Knife only targets one creature, yet is apparently incapable of twinning. While yes, Chain Lightning to most of us is pretty squarely in the "can't be twinned" section, there's enough ambiguity there since the player can only chose one target of the spell. I'm not saying that I'd buy that, but I'm also unsure of how much I'd really enforce that on some types of spells that they have 'officially' ruled out.

IMO it takes a pretty bent interpretation to not see a spell that can affect more than one creature as potentially targeting more than one creature. Ah well, I'm done here.

[guachi]

The answer to the OP's question is "No, you cannot twin chain lightning".

[UrielAwakened]

But again, feel free to let them because who cares, Sorcerers get screwed on everything else anyway.

[Zalabim]

There's no target line for spells because not all spells have targets, but all spells do have a range, components, level, name and school. Actually the Range line gets them into trouble sometimes too, so that could probably also go.

I understand a principle that goes something like, "If you have nothing nice to say, it's better to say nothing at all." As such, the things a lot of you deserve to hear have been erased. They will not be saved for posterity.

When two spells are written differently, it's not inconsistent for them to behave differently. It would actually be inconsistent for spells that behave in the same way to be written differently.


Yeah, to add to that, too many players (and DMs) aren't aware that all of a monster's melee attacks are melee weapon attacks by default.

That's another great example that did not need to be vague.
Every entry says if its attacks are melee weapon attacks, ranged weapon attacks, melee spell attacks, or ranged spell attacks. For every attack. There isn't the slightest bit that's vague here. You're just highlighting a real problem: People don't read the rules.