Twinned spell that use an action in later rounds

[SirVladamir]

If I twin a spell say (Heat Metal) that in later rounds costs a bonus action to damage the target, do both targets take damage or just one?

[jaappleton]

I rule both. Its the same casting of the spell, and so your bonus action controls both.

[Skyblaze]

The real question is if you twin telekinesis, can you then have two "hands" (for lack of a better way to phrase how telekinesis works) through out the duration of the spell.

But yes, with a permanent target, you're pulsing both with the same spell.

[Man_Over_Game]

The real question is if you twin telekinesis, can you then have two "hands" (for lack of a better way to phrase how telekinesis works) through out the duration of the spell.

But yes, with a permanent target, you're pulsing both with the same spell.

Important note: JC's has ruled that because Telepathy can affect more than the original target of the spell, it's not a valid use of Twin Spell (since you can use Telepathy on one target, then a different target, etc). Spells like Hex/Hunter's Mark are also mentioned as being ineligible for the same reason.

[Skyblaze]

Important note: JC's has ruled that because Telepathy can affect more than the original target of the spell, it's not a valid use of Twin Spell (since you can use Telepathy on one target, then a different target, etc). Spells like Hex/Hunter's Mark are also mentioned as being ineligible for the same reason.

Interesting, so if you can move the target of the spell, even though its still only hitting one person, it is not able to be twinned.

[Man_Over_Game]

Interesting, so if you can move the target of the spell, even though its still only hitting one person, it is not able to be twinned.

Consider this: 2 versions of Hex on the same creature, by the same user. Do you deal 1d6 damage on a hit, or 2d6? Do you afflict them with two cursed stats, or just one? Normally, overlapping spells don't stack, but this isn't the case of two overlapping spells because it's the same singular instance of spell allowed to affect two different targets (which are now targeting the same creature?)

[pdegan2814]

Consider this: 2 versions of Hex on the same creature, by the same user. Do you deal 1d6 damage on a hit, or 2d6? Do you afflict them with two cursed stats, or just one? Normally, overlapping spells don't stack, but this isn't the case of two overlapping spells because it's the same singular instance of spell allowed to affect two different targets (which are now targeting the same creature?)

You deal 1d6. According to Crawford in https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/829087884955095040, "second creature" in Twinned Spell means a different one from the first creature. So you can't lay both Hexes on the same creature.

[EggKookoo]

Consider this: 2 versions of Hex on the same creature, by the same user. Do you deal 1d6 damage on a hit, or 2d6? Do you afflict them with two cursed stats, or just one? Normally, overlapping spells don't stack, but this isn't the case of two overlapping spells because it's the same singular instance of spell allowed to affect two different targets (which are now targeting the same creature?)

Seems to me that would still fall under overlapping spell effects. Do the rules on overlapping effect specify anything about the number of casters or the origin of the effects?

[Man_Over_Game]

You deal 1d6. According to Crawford in https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/829087884955095040, "second creature" in Twinned Spell means a different one from the first creature. So you can't lay both Hexes on the same creature.

The question was putting Hex on two different creatures, having one of them die (cast it on an ant and step on it, or something like that), replacing the second hex onto the creature with the first hex, have doubled hex on the same creature (whatever that means).


Seems to me that would still fall under overlapping spell effects. Do the rules on overlapping effect specify anything about the number of casters or the origin of the effects?

The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine, however. Instead, the most potent effect — such as the highest bonus — from those castings applies while their durations overlap.

So it doesn't really cover this scenario. It's not cast multiple times, it's the same instance of the same spell, just...stacked twice on the same creature. Which is really weird. Another reason JC ruled that Twin Spell can only be cast on "simple" spells, I guess.

[EggKookoo]

So it doesn't really cover this scenario. It's not cast multiple times, it's the same instance of the same spell, just...stacked twice on the same creature. Which is really weird. Another reason JC ruled that Twin Spell can only be cast on "simple" spells, I guess.

I think I would still tend to consider the same instance stacked twice on one creature as overlapping effects.

[Chronos]

Man, Twinned Spell is one of those cases that really makes me resent the designers' decision to not use clear, unambiguous language. I still can't understand why they made avoiding clear language a design goal.

[Man_Over_Game]

Man, Twinned Spell is one of those cases that really makes me resent the designers' decision to not use clear, unambiguous language. I still can't understand why they made avoiding clear language a design goal.

They wanted to cut down on rules lawyering, basically saying that the DM makes the decision, and all decisions should probably use common sense (and common language). They also WANT DMs to make these judgment calls, which can be kinda difficult if the DM isn't experienced with balancing in games, though.

I do agree that it could be fine tuned a bit. Twin spell could have been rewritten as:

"When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn't have a range of self, you can spend a number of sorcery points equal to the spell's level to target a second creature in range with the same spell (1 sorcery point if the spell is a cantrip).

To be eligible for Twinned Spell, a spell must be incapable of magically affecting more than the original target creature for its duration at the spell's current level "

Which rules out things like Ice Knife (Magically affects more than one creature over its duration) and Hex (Can change targets).

[EggKookoo]

To be eligible for Twinned Spell, a spell must be incapable of magically affecting more than the original target creature for its duration at the spell's current level "

Which rules out things like Ice Knife (Magically affects more than one creature over its duration) and Hex (Can change targets).

You could maybe simplify that to:

A single creature cannot be affected by the effects of more than one application of a twinned spell.

So that means you can't affect a creature with one application of a twinned spell and then affect that same creature with the other application. It allows for ice knife but you can't use the burst/secondary damage from the second knife on a creature that had been targeted by the burst from the first. I guess it also would mean you can't directly target a creature with the second knife that had been affected by the secondary effect of the first, but that's not so bad.

With hex, you can change targets with each application but you can't apply both hexes to the same target. Since you can only move a hex to a new target once the current one drops to 0 HP, it's not like you'd move it back to one once you switch.

[Man_Over_Game]

You could maybe simplify that to:

A single creature cannot be affected by the effects of more than one application of a twinned spell.

So that means you can't affect a creature with one application of a twinned spell and then affect that same creature with the other application. It allows for ice knife but you can't use the burst/secondary damage from the second knife on a creature that had been targeted by the burst from the first. I guess it also would mean you can't directly target a creature with the second knife that had been affected by the secondary effect of the first, but that's not so bad.

With hex, you can change targets with each application but you can't apply both hexes to the same target. Since you can only move a hex to a new target once the current one drops to 0 HP, it's not like you'd move it back to one once you switch.

That'd be good for a houserule, but doesn't necessarily follow the designer's intent behind Twin spell, which is that the eligible spell cannot magically affect more than one creature, which includes creatures other than the original target.

[Kadesh]

That'd be good for a houserule, but doesn't necessarily follow the designer's intent behind Twin spell, which is that the eligible spell cannot magically affect more than one creature, which includes creatures other than the original target.

I don't understand why they didn't just make it 'Whenever you cast a spell that targets a single creature or object, you may also target a different eligible creature or object as part of the same casting.'

[Man_Over_Game]

I don't understand why they didn't just make it 'Whenever you cast a spell that targets a single creature or object, you may also target a different eligible creature or object as part of the same casting.'

Because even that doesn't quite fit the designer's intent. Things like Hex, Ice Knife, and Dragon's Breath technically only target a single creature at the start, but then can magically affect more than the original target. And all of those example spells are ones that JC said can't be twinned, so our options are to ignore it or to come up with a description that fits.

[Chronos]

Quoth Man_Over_Game:

They wanted to cut down on rules lawyering, basically saying that the DM makes the decision, and all decisions should probably use common sense (and common language).
In which case, using "common [i.e., unclear] language" was the worst possible means to that end. When language is clear (what's usually called "legalese"), you figure out the meaning, and then you're done. When language is unclear, people will argue endlessly about the meaning.

[strangebloke]

In which case, using "common [i.e., unclear] language" was the worst possible means to that end. When language is clear (what's usually called "legalese"), you figure out the meaning, and then you're done. When language is unclear, people will argue endlessly about the meaning.

Yes.

Their approach was designed to make rules-lawyering impossible, by making deliberately vague wording.

If I say, "get me a a slice of ham between two slices of bread, using mustard as a condiment" The language encourages you to read it legalistically and say things like "You were extremely clear, however, you did not specify whether the mustard was between the ham and the bread, on top of the bread, or to the side of the bread. Ultimately I chose the third option because...." and so on.

If I say, "get me a sandwich," my wording encourages you to use your judgement as to what you think is included in a sandwich.

[Man_Over_Game]

They tried to very explicit about the rules once upon a time, which was back in 3.5 and 4.

3.5 was so convoluted with so many different rules and possibilities and exceptions that it discouraged many people from playing it. Sure, a lot of people played (and still play) 3.5, but that wasn't because 3.5 was very welcoming. Those same people are familiar with other overcomplicated systems like with RIFTS or Shadowrun. 3.5 had many options, but it was so specific, so precise, that it wasn't always fun. No, you can't do that, because that other class does that. No, you can't do that, because it requires these feat taxes, which you're unable to get without these multiclassing changes. Building the character was more the focus of the game than actually living them sometimes, which strikes me as odd for a Role Playing Game.

4th edition was a step in another direction: Oversimplify it, but continue to let the rules dictate the game. And most of the community vilifies it. Take a look at the 4e section of the site and see how empty it is. 4e is what happens when you make a system unable to adapt without having the complexity needed to overcome any obstacle. It became what everyone called a "video game": easy to pick up but everything outside of the most obvious mechanics were completely empty. But despite that, most people who played 4th edition agree that what it does is great. It's incredibly easy for a new player to get into, start a fight, and really enjoy combat. But that's all it did.

5th edition was an attempt to learn from the past mistakes. Rather than trying to come up with more rules to cover everything (3.5), and trying to create rules and oversimplify the game (4e), they attempted to simplify the game and reduce the rules. Now what happens is in the DM's court. Everything, including the core rules, come with the caveat that "The DM Decides", and if he decides that you can Hide by falling Prone, then that's what happens. Most DMs either figure out what works or they stop being DMs, so it's best to give them more power than just being a narrator. Of course, that also means that sometimes, some rules are ambiguous (like with Twin Spell), but I like to think of that as being intentional.

Or, put in another way, is it more frustrating for it to be ambiguous so you and your DM have to make a decision, or would it be more frustrating for it to be an unbalanced ability that the DM's not allowed to fix?

[Kadesh]

No, you can't do that, because that other class does that. No, you can't do that, because it requires these feat taxes, which you're unable to get without these multiclassing changes. Building the character was more the focus of the game than actually living them sometimes, which strikes me as odd for a Role Playing Game.

Do you have an example? I think that is more to do with the writers not knowing the rules, and editing not picking it up.

For example, there is a feat which allows you to gain a familiar, which scales based on your Arcane Caster level. At least intentionally: but in legalese it said that increased whenever you took a level in a class that allowed you to cast Arcane Spells. Given that there is only a single class in the game that actively prevents you from casting spells (and that was grandfathered 3.0 content) this meant that provided you met requirements for that feat, your Familiar would scale. This then lead to counter arguments that not having the 'Arcane Spellcasting' or 'advance +1 arcane spellcasting' feature meant that you weren't being allowed to cast Arcane spells.

The issue was never that it was overly specific, it was just that the option bloat meant that it never met the legalese standards.

WotC inability to write rules that matched their own rules, despite the higher granularity of 3.5, was where it all fell down.

The only change they made was that they no longer care that much about it, and instead wheel out Jezza on Twitter to make rulings that are sometime either contradictory, 'legally' wrong/questionable (Shield Master, Twinned Spells, Spell Immunity on a Rakshahsa etc), or just flat out a mess, but are a direct insight to what the designers intent is/was.

UA is another example of the designers intent, or knowledge of their rules - Mike Mearls for example making a patron out of Lolth who adds spells already in the Warlock list to the Patron spell list.

And then you get Golgari Warlock's with Short Rest Animate Dead: something specifically intended 5e want to avoid.

These are raw insights and pure homebrew for the designers, but there aren't the checks and reviews that they usually get from even posting it on a forum.

You also have the Sacred Cows of previous editions that people 'want': Druids with no Metal Armour, Wish even existing as a spell players can learn etc.

The beauty of DnD is that you can pick and choose what you want to bring in, and the DM can make rulings. Such as not including 3.5e Spotting distance modifiers, etc that meant you can't see the Sun, and other such ridiculousness, or that Feat that actually makes Truespeak DC's harder for yourself being flipped to be a +2 to checks or - 2 to DC, or even a +2 to the DC of the Saves against it.

Or choosing whether Hex can be Twinned, and what happens when you do. All JC can do is provide his insights. Which he tries to justify: Longstrider for example can magically affect multiple creatures, because that magical effect means that a creature might be out of reach, while haste magically allows additional attacks and increased AC which magically affects multiple creatures.

The only way to fix that is by having Hex specifically written so as to not be Twinnable, and specifically clearer that it affects multiple creatures.

Yet another one lesson for WotC to learn and forget for 6e.

[Digimike]

I wouldn't actually have an issue with twinned hex. It's very clear in the general rules on spells that the same magical effects don't combine on the same creature.

If a warlock wants to twin hex 2 targets and split his EB Ray's up then cool. D&D is supposed to be fun.

However if someone tried rules lawyering then I'd use JC's advice.

[Dalebert]

Recent DMG errata has made it clear that effects with the same name on one target do not stack. The stronger of the two is the only one that affects the target.

[Pex]

They wanted to cut down on rules lawyering, basically saying that the DM makes the decision, and all decisions should probably use common sense (and common language). They also WANT DMs to make these judgment calls, which can be kinda difficult if the DM isn't experienced with balancing in games, though.

Which I think is a design flaw because it means the rules of the game change depending on who is DM that day. Of course DMs need to make judgment calls, but at some point the number of them ceases being a judgment and starts to become a poorly written game. I shouldn't have to ask the DM what are the rules we are using this time just for the audacity of playing the game with a different DM. I shouldn't need a list of vagueness requiring clarification to check off every Session 0.

[EggKookoo]

I shouldn't need a list of vagueness requiring clarification to check off every Session 0.

Why not? Just about every game I've played with a GM (D&D or not) has had some kind of "this is how I handle XYZ" at the beginning. This has been going on long before 5e was a glint in anyone's eye.

[Chronos]

Yeah, usually every DM has a few things that he does differently, and he knows that he does them differently so he can make it a point to mention it, and there are few enough of them that he can remember them, and not have to keep a written list. Make the rules vague "to avoid rules lawyering", though, and you'll get different DMs using different rules because they take it for granted that that's the way things work, so they never mention it until it comes up because "everyone knows", and you need a very long list of those clarifications.

[EggKookoo]

Yeah, usually every DM has a few things that he does differently, and he knows that he does them differently so he can make it a point to mention it, and there are few enough of them that he can remember them, and not have to keep a written list. Make the rules vague "to avoid rules lawyering", though, and you'll get different DMs using different rules because they take it for granted that that's the way things work, so they never mention it until it comes up because "everyone knows", and you need a very long list of those clarifications.

Even still, why is this a problem? If, as a player, I have a strong opinion or want precise clarification of a given mechanic, it's on me to bring that up at session 0. Just as much as it's on the DM to bring up anything they have strong opinions about or specific interpretations of. In Pex's example, if he's making a sorcerer and has some ideas in mind about how Twinned Spell works, he's obliged to bring that up. "How do you handle Twinned Spell? For example, could I do..?" and he and the DM would come to an understanding. Either the DM has a strong position that contrasts with the player's, in which case the player may need to go another route, or the DM doesn't really have a position and will probably accede to the player's interpretation.

Pex seems to be objecting to having to go through this process each session 0 but that's what session 0 is for (at least in part -- it serves other purposes as well). Of course things will slip through the cracks but that's hardly a 5e thing.

[Tanarii]

Make the rules vague "to avoid rules lawyering", though, and you'll get different DMs using different rules because they take it for granted that that's the way things work, so they never mention it until it comes up because "everyone knows", and you need a very long list of those clarifications.Its not done to avoid rules lawyering. It's done because extremely complex rules create as many edge cases due to rules interactions as overly simple rules require DM rulings due to lack of clarity. They tried to strike the balance where the fewest edge cases happen and the least DM ruling are between those two cases. Between clear enough to cut down on DM rulings, and not so strict as to create weird interactions. With an understanding that you get edge cases more with increasing density of rules, and trying to minimize them without eliminating clarity and increasing the need for DM rulings to exceptional levels. And with the explict statement that the DM just has to rule on stuff.

The last is necessary because many people in the previous two editions, and apparently the one before that, lost sight of these facts. They thought that more rules was always better due to eliminating the need for DM rulings. Unfortunately that was proven not to be true past a certain point. Instead it increases them due to more rules interactions creating exponential edge cases.

[iTreeby]

If I say, "get me a sandwich," my wording encourages you to use your judgement as to what you think is included in a sandwich.

The problem is that a sandwich is not well defined. You get a dozen people asking if calzones, hotdogs, hamburgers, or salads (a sandwich without bread) are sandwiches.

[Pex]

Why not? Just about every game I've played with a GM (D&D or not) has had some kind of "this is how I handle XYZ" at the beginning. This has been going on long before 5e was a glint in anyone's eye.

There is a difference between a DM having house rules he mentions at Session 0 and me having to recite a list of every vague rule in the book to learn how we are going to play the game this time.

[EggKookoo]

There is a difference between a DM having house rules he mentions at Session 0 and me having to recite a list of every vague rule in the book to learn how we are going to play the game this time.

But you wouldn't have to mention every vague rule in the book. You want to play a sorcerer, you bring up the handful of relevant ambiguous sorcerer features (there's like, what, one, two?). Why would you need to worry about how sneak attack works?

[Pex]

Even still, why is this a problem? If, as a player, I have a strong opinion or want precise clarification of a given mechanic, it's on me to bring that up at session 0. Just as much as it's on the DM to bring up anything they have strong opinions about or specific interpretations of. In Pex's example, if he's making a sorcerer and has some ideas in mind about how Twinned Spell works, he's obliged to bring that up. "How do you handle Twinned Spell? For example, could I do..?" and he and the DM would come to an understanding. Either the DM has a strong position that contrasts with the player's, in which case the player may need to go another route, or the DM doesn't really have a position and will probably accede to the player's interpretation.

Pex seems to be objecting to having to go through this process each session 0 but that's what session 0 is for (at least in part -- it serves other purposes as well). Of course things will slip through the cracks but that's hardly a 5e thing.

Session 0 is for game scheduling, discussing tone of the game, DM house rules, how to handle food - ordering, bring your own, etc., character creation. It's not for learning how to play the game, except for someone new to the game. Even beyond Session 0 it affects the game. I'm still incensed that time when playing a wizard I was not allowed to have my owl familiar use the Help Action to give another player Advantage on an attack even though every DM I had before allowed it but the first time I play the wizard, no that DM says the rules don't allow it. It was never a House Rule by any DM. It was the DM ruling. It didn't come up in Session 0 because it was the Rule owl familiars can do that, but lucky me I get the DM who says no the Rule does not say that.

That's not the only thing. Does great weapon style work on paladin smites? Who chooses summoned creatures? There's always something each DM says differently that are not house rules but how the rules are supposed to work. They don't come up in Session 0 because no one knows there's a problem until there is one in game. It affects my decisions on how I make my character. Just recently I had to ask my DM how he interprets Shield Master feat when I hit 8th level. I had to go over the controversy. Fortunately he ignored the unnecessary nerf and allowed Shield Master to work as it always had, but I shouldn't have needed to ask. I should have been able to take the feat and be done with it.


Its not done to avoid rules lawyering. It's done because extremely complex rules create as many edge cases due to rules interactions as overly simple rules require DM rulings due to lack of clarity. They tried to strike the balance where the fewest edge cases happen and the least DM ruling are between those two cases. Between clear enough to cut down on DM rulings, and not so strict as to create weird interactions. With an understanding that you get edge cases more with increasing density of rules, and trying to minimize them without eliminating clarity and increasing the need for DM rulings to exceptional levels. And with the explict statement that the DM just has to rule on stuff.

The last is necessary because many people in the previous two editions, and apparently the one before that, lost sight of these facts. They thought that more rules was always better due to eliminating the need for DM rulings. Unfortunately that was proven not to be true past a certain point. Instead it increases them due to more rules interactions creating exponential edge cases.

Rules do not have to be complex to be concrete in understanding what they are.


But you wouldn't have to mention every vague rule in the book. You want to play a sorcerer, you bring up the handful of relevant ambiguous sorcerer features (there's like, what, one, two?). Why would you need to worry about how sneak attack works?

So the next time I play a Sorcerer I have to ask that DM then the next and the next? When one DM says differently it could be the deal breaker, and now I don't enjoy playing the Sorcerer in that game as I wanted. Why can't I just know how to play a Sorcerer and be done with it?

Anyway, as for the OP, I did once play a Sorcerer with Twin Hex. The DM ruled that when a target can change I can only change one target per Bonus Action and doubling Hex on a creature would have no affect - only one extra d6 damage and no second ability score disadvantage.

[Kadesh]

Session 0 is for game scheduling, discussing tone of the game, DM house rules, how to handle food - ordering, bring your own, etc., character creation. It's not for learning how to play the game, except for someone new to the game. Even beyond Session 0 it affects the game. I'm still incensed that time when playing a wizard I was not allowed to have my owl familiar use the Help Action to give another player Advantage on an attack even though every DM I had before allowed it but the first time I play the wizard, no that DM says the rules don't allow it. It was never a House Rule by any DM. It was the DM ruling. It didn't come up in Session 0 because it was the Rule owl familiars can do that, but lucky me I get the DM who says no the Rule does not say that.

That's not the only thing. Does great weapon style work on paladin smites? Who chooses summoned creatures? There's always something each DM says differently that are not house rules but how the rules are supposed to work. They don't come up in Session 0 because no one knows there's a problem until there is one in game. It affects my decisions on how I make my character. Just recently I had to ask my DM how he interprets Shield Master feat when I hit 8th level. I had to go over the controversy. Fortunately he ignored the unnecessary nerf and allowed Shield Master to work as it always had, but I shouldn't have needed to ask. I should have been able to take the feat and be done with it.



Rules do not have to be complex to be concrete in understanding what they are.



So the next time I play a Sorcerer I have to ask that DM then the next and the next? When one DM says differently it could be the deal breaker, and now I don't enjoy playing the Sorcerer in that game as I wanted. Why can't I just know how to play a Sorcerer and be done with it?

You do not need to ask for every rule to be clarified. No point asking for a GWM Paladin ruling if you don't have a GWM Paladin. No point asking for a Shield Master ruling if you don't have Shield Master. No point asking for Summoned Creatures if you don't have a Summons capable caster, in the same way you don't need to document the lives of every NPC in the world as a DM.

[bid]

creature would have no affect
What, you were hoping it'd start talking with a posh british accent?:smallbiggrin:

[Tanarii]

Rules do not have to be complex to be concrete in understanding what they are.Yah. Its a common correlation, not causation.

[Pex]

You do not need to ask for every rule to be clarified. No point asking for a GWM Paladin ruling if you don't have a GWM Paladin. No point asking for a Shield Master ruling if you don't have Shield Master. No point asking for Summoned Creatures if you don't have a Summons capable caster, in the same way you don't need to document the lives of every NPC in the world as a DM.

But we still have to ask when they do. Every time someone wants to play a paladin. Every time someone wants to summon creatures. Every time someone wants an owl familiar. It may not be my character but it will be someone. We cannot just play the game. We have to go over the rules every single time and they change depending on who is DM beyond Session 0.

[Kadesh]

But we still have to ask when they do. Every time someone wants to play a paladin. Every time someone wants to summon creatures. Every time someone wants an owl familiar. It may not be my character but it will be someone. We cannot just play the game. We have to go over the rules every single time and they change depending on who is DM beyond Session 0.
'oh no the DM is clarifying rules'
And what?

[EggKookoo]

'oh no the DM is clarifying rules'
And what?

Yeah, I don't get the angst here.