Can you drop Concentration on one Twinned spell and not the other?

[Crgaston]

As per title. If you have, say, Enlarge/Reduce twin cast on 2 targets, can you willingly end the effect on one target and not the other?

[JackPhoenix]

No. You aren't concentrating on two different spells, Twinned spell allows you to target two different creatures with the same spell, not cast two spells at once.

[BurgerBeast]

No. You aren't concentrating on two different spells, Twinned spell allows you to target two different creatures with the same spell, not cast two spells at once.

I’m not trying to claim that you’re wrong on this. I don’t know the answer.

But I will say that if this is correct, I don’t like it.

[Pex]

I’m not trying to claim that you’re wrong on this. I don’t know the answer.

But I will say that if this is correct, I don’t like it.

Think of it this way. The cleric casts Bless on three people. If he loses concentration they all lose Bless. Same principle.

[Crgaston]

I’m not trying to claim that you’re wrong on this. I don’t know the answer.

But I will say that if this is correct, I don’t like it.

Ditto for all this^^



No. You aren't concentrating on two different spells, Twinned spell allows you to target two different creatures with the same spell, not cast two spells at once.

Twinned spell says "...target a second creature in range with the same spell." This strongly suggests to me that your position is correct.


What happens if you Twin Invisibility and one of the targets attacks, and breaks the Invisibility?

(reads spell description)

Oh. "The spell ends for a target (emphasis mine) that attacks or casts a spell." So that doesn't undermine your position at all.
Dang

[thrdeye]

Ditto for all this^^




Twinned spell says "...target a second creature in range with the same spell." This strongly suggests to me that your position is correct.


What happens if you Twin Invisibility and one of the targets attacks, and breaks the Invisibility?

(reads spell description)

Oh. "The spell ends for a target (emphasis mine) that attacks or casts a spell." So that doesn't undermine your position at all.
Dang

After a few minutes of searching, most spells I found with conditions that end the spell have similar wording. Mental Prison, however, does not. If the target creature makes its initial save against the effect or moves through the illusionary prison surrounding it, the spell ends. RAW, it seems to me that this would end a twinned Mental Prison for both targets. Incidentally, it seems a successful Dispel Magic would do the same, and for a much wider variety of spells including Invisibility.

I'm not happy about any of this, of course. I could see many DMs ruling otherwise.

Edit: Otto's Irresistible Dance is another example. I'm sure there are plenty of others.

Edit: And Crown of Madness. I'm not trying to create a comprehensive list, I'm just curious now.

Edit: Ooh, what about a twinned Sanctuary? I need to go to bed.

[Crgaston]

After a few minutes of searching, most spells I found with conditions that end the spell have similar wording. Mental Prison, however, does not. If the target creature makes its initial save against the effect or moves through the illusionary prison surrounding it, the spell ends. RAW, it seems to me that this would end a twinned Mental Prison for both targets. Incidentally, it seems a successful Dispel Magic would do the same, and for a much wider variety of spells including Invisibility.

I'm not happy about any of this, of course. I could see many DMs ruling otherwise.

Edit: Otto's Irresistible Dance is another example. I'm sure there are plenty of others.

Edit: And Crown of Madness. I'm not trying to create a comprehensive list, I'm just curious now.

Nice work! Thank you.

Yep, I was hoping to be able to Enlarge myself and Reduce something like a cart, throw it, and release concentration on the Reduce right before it lands. And I'm pretty sure my DM would let it fly (pun intended) at least once if I narrated it well.

[SpanielBear]

Nice work! Thank you.

Yep, I was hoping to be able to Enlarge myself and Reduce something like a cart, throw it, and release concentration on the Reduce right before it lands. And I'm pretty sure my DM would let it fly (pun intended) at least once if I narrated it well.

That should still work though, for that one instance. It wouldn’t matter that you and the cart turned back to the same size at the same time, it would happen after you threw it so no worries. Just means you couldn’t stay enlarged.

[Fryy]

Incidentally, it seems a successful Dispel Magic would do the same, and for a much wider variety of spells including Invisibility.

I do not think so. You cannot target a spell with the Dispel Magic spell. In 5e, Dispel Magic you "Choose any creature, object, or magical effect within range". A magical effect is not the same as an active spell.

An invisibility spell (for example) could create multiple magic effects of invisibility of one effect per person affected. So, in 5e the dispel magic spell could dispel the invisibility effect on one person.

A Web spell (as another example) creates a single magical effect (i.e. a single web). So, you could dispel the magical 'effect' created by the spell (in this case the Web). This is not the same as dispelling the Web 'spell'.

Note: In 3.5, the dispel magic spell was very different. I believe you could target and dispel an "ongoing spell".

[Kane0]

As a DM i'd say sure, why not. Player choice and all that. Dunno about the RAW answer though.

[Lord Vukodlak]

As a DM i'd say sure, why not. Player choice and all that. Dunno about the RAW answer though.

Agreed, it'd be a unusual situation where you'd even want to drop it on on creature and not both...

[Laserlight]

Agreed, it'd be a unusual situation where you'd even want to drop it on on creature and not both...

I polymorph the baddie into one bird, and me into another. I chase him into the air. I drop concentration on him, but not me. Or if there's deep water around, he's a fish and I'm a dolphin.

I've had a party member want to cancel Flight for other PCs but not herself.

[thrdeye]

I do not think so. You cannot target a spell with the Dispel Magic spell. In 5e, Dispel Magic you "Choose any creature, object, or magical effect within range". A magical effect is not the same as an active spell.

An invisibility spell (for example) could create multiple magic effects of invisibility of one effect per person affected. So, in 5e the dispel magic spell could dispel the invisibility effect on one person.

A Web spell (as another example) creates a single magical effect (i.e. a single web). So, you could dispel the magical 'effect' created by the spell (in this case the Web). This is not the same as dispelling the Web 'spell'.

Note: In 3.5, the dispel magic spell was very different. I believe you could target and dispel an "ongoing spell".

It was established above that Twinned Spell causes a single instance of a spell to affect two targets. This is not in dispute, correct?

While Dispel Magic can target a magical effect, it ends not a magical effect but a spell. So, when two creatures have a twinned Invisibility cast on them, there is one spell affecting two creatures. When Dispel Magic is cast targeting one of those creatures, the Invisibility spell ends.

[Aimeryan]

Never really thought about this; would a spell with multiple targets (upcast Hold Person, Bless, etc.) be dispelled for all targets if one of the targets was dispelled?


Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends. For each spell of 4th level or higher on the target, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell's level. On a successful check, the spell ends.

Bolded for emphasis. I could see a reading that the target is just 'dis-targeted' by the spell and the spell continues, could also see a reading that the spell just ends.

[Zanthy1]

RAW is clear that dropping it on any would drop it at all, unless specifically such otherwise (such as the Invisibility spell). I had a player who wanted to drop Fly from one of the other players, because that player wouldn't let them blow up a peasant's barn. I asked if the caster was sure he wanted to cancel Fly, the caster said he was sure. So he cancelled Fly, and the whole party plummeted.

[Aimeryan]

RAW is clear that dropping it on any would drop it at all, unless specifically such otherwise (such as the Invisibility spell). I had a player who wanted to drop Fly from one of the other players, because that player wouldn't let them blow up a peasant's barn. I asked if the caster was sure he wanted to cancel Fly, the caster said he was sure. So he cancelled Fly, and the whole party plummeted.

I would say Invisibility would end if one of the targets it has been cast on attacks or or casts a spell:


A creature you touch becomes invisible until the spell ends. Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person. The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell.

Bolded for emphasis. It does not say 'the effects of the spell ends' but that 'the spell ends'. The spell is being shared by multiple targets, they all lose it.

[Zanthy1]

I would say Invisibility would end if one of the targets it has been cast on attacks or or casts a spell:



Bolded for emphasis. It does not say 'the effects of the spell ends' but that 'the spell ends'. The spell is being shared by multiple targets, they all lose it.

Hmm that is interesting, I like it. I prefer my campaigns to be a little more rough, and having one player forget this and breaking the spell is perfect.

[JackPhoenix]

Yep, I was hoping to be able to Enlarge myself and Reduce something like a cart, throw it, and release concentration on the Reduce right before it lands. And I'm pretty sure my DM would let it fly (pun intended) at least once if I narrated it well.

There's another reason why that wouldn't work: Twinned only works on spells that target creatures, not objects.

[Aimeryan]

Hmm, Hold Person has similar language:


On a success, the spell ends on the target.
...
When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, you can target one additional humanoid for each slot level above 2nd.


Bolded for emphasis. Again, it says 'the spell ends' not 'the effects of the spell ends'. The spell is being shared amongst multiple targets, ending the spell frees them all.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I may just be smoking crack, but to me the qualifier "on the target" implies that it doesn't end on other targets.

[Aimeryan]

I may just be smoking crack, but to me the qualifier "on the target" implies that it doesn't end on other targets.

The problem there is that is only one spell. I am 99% sure the intention is 'the effects of the spell ends', but it actually says 'the spell ends'.

Another interpretation could be that each target actually has a separate spell cast on them, however, that disputes the idea that Twinning remains only one spell.

[BurgerBeast]

It was established above that Twinned Spell causes a single instance of a spell to affect two targets. This is not in dispute, correct?

It is disputable, I think.

“The same spell” is ambiguous. For example, it is possible to use this phrasing when two different wizards cast Fireball (they cast the sane spell, not different spells). Or when a Fighter/Wizard casts Fireball twice in one round.

You can imagine (perhaps not in D&D, but nonetheless) a wizard casting two spells simultaneously. They could be the same spell or different spells.

The obvious counter point is that it uses one spell slot, so it’s one casting. But that’s not necessarily convincing because there are presumably other ways to explain this using different rationale for how magic works.

[BurgerBeast]

Bolded for emphasis. It does not say 'the effects of the spell ends' but that 'the spell ends'. The spell is being shared by multiple targets, they all lose it.

But it also says “for a target”... which not only means one target, but specifically refers to the target that attacks in this case.”

It’s not clear.

[BurgerBeast]

Bolded for emphasis. Again, it says 'the spell ends' not 'the effects of the spell ends'. The spell is being shared amongst multiple targets, ending the spell frees them all.

The spell ends on the target. (Emphasis added.)

[Aimeryan]

But it also says “for a target”... which not only means one target, but specifically refers to the target that attacks in this case.”

It’s not clear.

I would say it is clear from a written point of view as long as you accept the premise that there is only one spell. The intent is less clear, however.

My suspicion is that one target successfully saving against an upcast Hold Person is not meant to end the spell, but instead end the effects of the spell on just themselves. If I am correct, then Wizards have used the wrong terminology. There are a number of other spells this also affects, of course.



The spell ends on the target. (Emphasis added.)

As for the other post, the problem is that there is only one spell. If you end that spell, there is no spell.

~~~

An interesting point, Eyebite:


At the end of each of its turns, it can make another Wisdom saving throw. If it succeeds, the effect ends.

Likewise, upcast Dispel Magic:


At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, you automatically end the effects of a spell on the target if the spell's level is equal to or less than the level of the spell slot you used.

[The Aboleth]

Potential compromise: Have the player roll a check (Arcana, maybe?) or a save to see if they can successfully re-direct the power from the dropped twinned spell back to the remaining casting.

So for example: You want to drop concentration for one Reduce/Enlarge but not the other. Since the spell was originally Twinned, you're going to have to use some serious magic might to successfully de-split that. Roll high enough, it succeeds...roll too low, and the spell drops for both Twinned instances.

It's not RAW, but I think it's a nice compromise so long as the players don't abuse it.

[BurgerBeast]

I would say it is clear from a written point of view as long as you accept the premise that there is only one spell.

And I would say that it is unclear, even accepting that there is only one spell.

It is still reasonable to read “the spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell” as applying to only those targets who attack or cast spells, which means it can end for some targets but not others.

[Aimeryan]

And I would say that it is unclear, even accepting that there is only one spell.

It is still reasonable to read “the spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell” as applying to only those targets who attack or cast spells, which means it can end for some targets but not others.

Ok, so what is ending? The spell? There is only one spell. If it ends for one target, it ends for all. Now, if the effects of the spell ends, that is fine - there are multiple effects (one for each target). That is not what is written here, though. Contrast Dispel Magic:


At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, you automatically end the effects of a spell on the target if the spell's level is equal to or less than the level of the spell slot you used.

[BurgerBeast]

Ok, so what is ending? The spell? There is only one spell. If it ends for one target, it ends for all. Now, if the effects of the spell ends, that is fine - there are multiple effects (one for each target). That is not what is written here, though. Contrast Dispel Magic:

The spell ends on the target.

This part: If it ends for one target, it ends for all. is your interpretation.

Edited: The use of “the spell ends on the target” and “the spell effect ends on the target” is not necessarily as significant as you are saying it is.

Likewise for “the spell ends” or “the spell effect ends” or “the spell effects end.”

There’s room for someone to take the view that “spell” and “spell effects” are equivalent in some contexts. This is one of them.

It’s not clear.

Perhaps this would be helpful. In the same way that you draw attention to the difference between “the spell” and “the spell effects,” you might also consider the difference between:

1. The spell ends

2. The spell ends on the target

And ask, why would they include the words “on the target”?

[DMThac0]

In regards to the OP's question:

If you drop concentration on your spell it ends that spell.
Twinned spell lets you add a target to the spell you are casting.
You are casting 1 spell with two targets. (think 5th level Eldritch Blast)

If you drop concentration, all targets lose the effect of the spell.

---

Dispel Magic was recently addressed here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?584979-Dispel-magic-question).

[BurgerBeast]

It’s not clear whether twinned spell is:

1. One casting of one spell, on two targets.

2. Two castings of one spell.

It can be read either way. To my knowledge there is no decisive evidence, either way.

There is an argument to be made that if it consumes one slot, it is one casting. The counter point, to this, however, is that Twinned Spell only applies to spells which cannot target multiple targets. So, it can’t be a single casting, which can be taken to mean it must be cast more than once in order to apply to multiple targets.

Edit: I personally think they should’ve made the rules such that Twinned Spell does not apply to concentration spells.

[Man_Over_Game]

It’s not clear whether twinned spell is:

1. One casting of one spell, on two targets.

2. Two castings of one spell.

It can be read either way. To my knowledge there is no decisive evidence, either way.

There is an argument to be made that if it consumes one slot, it is one casting. The counter point, to this, however, is that Twinned Spell only applies to spells which cannot target multiple targets. So, it can’t be a single casting, which can be taken to mean it must be cast more than once in order to apply to multiple targets.

Edit: I personally think they should’ve made the rules such that Twinned Spell does not apply to concentration spells.

I mean, the decisive evidence is there, though.

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).

Note that it does not mention casting a second spell. Also note that the requirements to Twin a spell is to "Cast a spell that targets only one creature". That is, the Casting happens, and THEN it gets Twinned.

Saying that Twinning a spell makes it ineligible for Twin Spell is like saying that Quickened Spell can't have you cast a spell as a Bonus Action, because it only works on spells with a Casting Time of 1 Action (and that would no longer be true after using Quickened Spell).

[samcifer]

I'd personally say no, but if the player was insistent I'd tell them that due to the complexity of the action and the concentration required to maintain the spell, they'd have to make a saving throw, as an action, using their spellcasting stat with proficiency, BUT with disadvantage. If they succeed they can release one target from the spell. If they fail, the spell immediately ends on all targets.

[NaughtyTiger]

The problem there is that is only one spell. I am 99% sure the intention is 'the effects of the spell ends', but it actually says 'the spell ends'.

it says "the spell ends on the target.


if you really want get messy:


What is a spell?
A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse into a specific, limited expression.

so, it says "the [discrete magical effect] ends on the target"


To the OP's question, I interpret it as you cannot stop concentrating on individual spell effects on individual targets without explicit ability in the spell

[Aimeryan]

-snip-

You seem to be misunderstanding me; I am aware of the likely intent and would Rule that way, too. My point is that wording is poor and technically 'the spell ends' means exactly that - the spell ends.

[BurgerBeast]

I mean, the decisive evidence is there, though.

That’s not decisive evidence. There is a question with an ambiguous answer: what does the same spell mean?

If my wizard casts fireball in two successive rounds, it would not be wrong to say he cast the same spell when describing the second casting.

So same spell can mean “both are the fireball spell, so it’s the same spell.” Or it can mean what you are purporting: they are literally the same casting. In which case you might say, “no, they are not the same spell. He cast one of them last round, so it’s obviously not the same spell.”

You might think of this as the spell ID being the same versus the spell instance (which I previously referred to as spell casting) being the same.


Note that it does not mention casting a second spell. Also note that the requirements to Twin a spell is to "Cast a spell that targets only one creature". That is, the Casting happens, and THEN it gets Twinned.

This chronology is not necessarily correct. I don’t think it’s relevant, though.

The question we’re trying to answer is: what does it mean for a spell to be twinned? Does it magically allow an otherwise single target spell to be cast at two targets in one casting, or does it magically cause a second casting. The answer remains unclear.

For example, if you twin a damaging spell, do you roll damage once and apply it to both? Or do you roll it separately?


Saying that Twinning a spell makes it ineligible for Twin Spell is like saying that Quickened Spell can't have you cast a spell as a Bonus Action, because it only works on spells with a Casting Time of 1 Action (and that would no longer be true after using Quickened Spell).

I’m not saying it is ineligible. I’m saying that to say it would be ineligible is a bad argument in a similar way to the argument that you are putting forth.


You seem to be misunderstanding me; I am aware of the likely intent and would Rule that way, too. My point is that wording is poor and technically 'the spell ends' means exactly that - the spell ends.

No. I read you loud and clear. I think the RAW are more ambiguous than you think.

I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’ve stated my argument twice, now. Now a third time:

If two wizards both cast fireball, did they cast the same spell? “Yes” is not an obviously wrong answer.

So, if twinning a spell actually magically creates a second spell, it could still be correct to say that they are both the same spell.

And your argument hinges on the idea that “the same spell” implies one spell.

[Laolir]

I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’ve stated my argument twice, now. Now a third time:

If two wizards both cast fireball, did they cast the same spell? “Yes” is not an obviously wrong answer.

So, if twinning a spell actually magically creates a second spell, it could still be correct to say that they are both the same spell.

And your argument hinges on the idea that “the same spell” implies one spell.

Well, if that's the case, you can't twin concentration spells because you can't concentrate on two spells at once.

And nowhere in the text does it says that you cast a second spell, only that you "target a second creature in range with the same spell". You are just targeting with it, not casting it. If they are two separate instance of the "same spell", twinned doesn't work.

[Laserlight]

And nowhere in the text does it says that you cast a second spell, only that you "target a second creature in range with the same spell". You are just targeting with it, not casting it.

You're not seeing the ambiguity some of us are seeing, but it's still there. Does "with the same spell" mean "extend that casting to cover a second target", or does it mean "apply a second copy of that spell, but you can't apply Fly to Bob and Polymorph to Ted" ? My own opinion is that it means "you extend the casting" but if Crawford said it was the other way, that wouldn't shatter my sanity.

I would rule that if, say, Alice cast twinned Sanctuary or Invisibility or such on Bob and Carol, then an attack which causes Alice to lose concentration would end the effect on both Bob and Carol, but if Carol attacked a target and thereby broke her Invisibility, that wouldn't end it on Bob.

[Aimeryan]

No. I read you loud and clear. I think the RAW are more ambiguous than you think.

I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’ve stated my argument twice, now. Now a third time:

If two wizards both cast fireball, did they cast the same spell? “Yes” is not an obviously wrong answer.

So, if twinning a spell actually magically creates a second spell, it could still be correct to say that they are both the same spell.

And your argument hinges on the idea that “the same spell” implies one spell.

Oh, no, I completely agree - it is possible they are actually two spells, that are the same spell as each other. My argument only stands if it is one spell. You could say, my argument supports your argument that it is not one spell.

~~~

Been looking again at Dispel Magic. The spell seems to have a split personality on whether it ends spells or ends the effects of spells. I'll split it into the three parts that do this:


Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends.


For each spell of 4th level or higher on the target, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell's level. On a successful check, the spell ends.


When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, you automatically end the effects of a spell on the target if the spell's level is equal to or less than the level of the spell slot you used.

For the first, the clause follows as 'the spell ends on target', which seems to be controversial as to whether the spell ends or the effects of the spell end on the target.
For the second, the clause follows as 'the spell ends', which seems as blatant as it could possibly be that the spell ends.
For the third, the clause follows as 'the effects of the spell on the target end', which seems as blatant as it could possibly be that the effects of the spell end on the target.

Seems it dispels in different ways for different spell slots combinations, further than whether or not you make an ability check. *shrug*

Now, if each target has its own spell on it, they all read the same. Which seems interesting for spells like Hold Person which affects multiple targets yet is also Concentration.

[Keravath]

I mean, the decisive evidence is there, though.


Note that it does not mention casting a second spell. Also note that the requirements to Twin a spell is to "Cast a spell that targets only one creature". That is, the Casting happens, and THEN it gets Twinned.

Saying that Twinning a spell makes it ineligible for Twin Spell is like saying that Quickened Spell can't have you cast a spell as a Bonus Action, because it only works on spells with a Casting Time of 1 Action (and that would no longer be true after using Quickened Spell).


"P.102 of the Player's Handbook
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)."

The problem is that the wording is actually ambiguous.

If I cast a spell twice ... I am casting the same spell twice.
If I target two creatures at once ... I am targeting two creatures with the same spell.

Do you see the problem? The wording says "to target a second creature in range with the same spell" but it doesn't say whether this is a second target of the one original spell or a simultaneous additional (twinned :)) casting of the same spell targeting another creature. Twinned does not allow you to cast DIFFERENT spells on two separate targets, you can only cast "the same spell".

The entire discussion can't really be resolved until the rules are clarified as to whether twin creates two copies of the same spell with different targets or whether twin allows a second target to be designated for the one casting of the spell.

The text for twin (as written) can easily be read either way.

P.S. If you believe in sage advice (I tend not to :) ) ... there were a couple of answers from years ago ...

Mike Mearls has said

If you twin a spell are you concentrating on two spell instances?
1) One spell instance, two targets

However he has also said: "if you twin a spell requiring an attack roll do you make one roll or two?"
2) 2

Requiring two attack rolls for one spell with two targets would be incorrect since it should only have a single attack roll since only one spell is cast. So his answers are a bit inconsistent.

Mike is also not JC and these folks tend to give answers that conform to how they would play it at their table since in many cases they don't seem to consult with each other when answering these questions.

[Chronos]

Requiring two attack rolls for one spell with two targets would be incorrect since it should only have a single attack roll since only one spell is cast. So his answers are a bit inconsistent.
Scorching Ray and Eldritch Blast can both attack multiple targets with a single casting of a single instance of a single spell. But they still use multiple attack rolls.

[Man_Over_Game]

Scorching Ray and Eldritch Blast can both attack multiple targets with a single casting of a single instance of a single spell. But they still use multiple attack rolls.

This is important to clear up a lot of the questions. There is no instance of an effect that attacks two creatures with the same roll. Even something like the Hunter's Whirlwind Strike has you make separate attack rolls against all of the creatures you're attacking at once.

The closest instance of something that uses a singular roll is Magic Missile, which:

Doesn't make an attack
Explicitly says each dart hits simultaneously


The fact that you can target a second creature with the same attack spell isn't anything new (as shown with Eldritch Blast, which can target between 1 and 4 creatures, and be limited to targeting only one until level 5). There's no reason to assume Twinned Spell would work any differently than Eldritch Blast in that regards. Why should it?

[Keravath]

This is important to clear up a lot of the questions. There is no instance of an effect that attacks two creatures with the same roll. Even something like the Hunter's Whirlwind Strike has you make separate attack rolls against all of the creatures you're attacking at once.

The closest instance of something that uses a singular roll is Magic Missile, which:

Doesn't make an attack
Explicitly says each dart hits simultaneously


The fact that you can target a second creature with the same attack spell isn't anything new (as shown with Eldritch Blast, which can target between 1 and 4 creatures, and be limited to targeting only one until level 5). There's no reason to assume Twinned Spell would work any differently than Eldritch Blast in that regards. Why should it?

I agree :) ... but I've seen it ruled at a table (not by me) that since one spell is being cast and that spell does not specify multiple attack rolls in its description (which both eldritch blast and scorching ray specifically do) then the one attack roll applies to both targets (of course with potentially different AC and modifiers).

This is consistent with the idea that when a spell is twinned then only one spell is being cast but the effects are being applied to multiple targets. On the other hand, if the same spell is being cast twice then two attack rolls would be called for ...

[Man_Over_Game]

I agree :) ... but I've seen it ruled at a table (not by me) that since one spell is being cast and that spell does not specify multiple attack rolls in its description (which both eldritch blast and scorching ray specifically do) then the one attack roll applies to both targets (of course with potentially different AC and modifiers).

This is consistent with the idea that when a spell is twinned then only one spell is being cast but the effects are being applied to multiple targets. On the other hand, if the same spell is being cast twice then two attack rolls would be called for ...

If it was a second casting, then Twinned Spell would be incompatible with Concentration spells (since you can't hold 2 Concentration spells at once, but you CAN have a Concentration spell with more than 1 target). You'd think that if the spell was incompatible with Concentration spells that they'd just rule those out as a possibility.

Note that Quicken Spell only works on Action based spells, because there's no point in using Quicken spell on a Bonus Action spell.

The Devs do not assume that you know better. If there is a direct conflict with making something eligible for an effect, they'd say so (as with Quicken Spell on Bonus Actions). This is not the case with Twinned Spell and Concentration, which implies that there is no conflict.

[BurgerBeast]

Well, if that's the case, you can't twin concentration spells because you can't concentrate on two spells at once.

And nowhere in the text does it says that you cast a second spell, only that you "target a second creature in range with the same spell". You are just targeting with it, not casting it. If they are two separate instance of the "same spell", twinned doesn't work.

This argument has merit.

But it is analogous to someone saying: “If you are correct and it is one spell cast at two targets, that can’t be right, because the spell in question can only have one target. Therefore twinning must create a second instance of the spell.

So they both have merit.

[Chronos]

Except that it explicitly states that you can concentrate on both. Is that a clarification of how concentrating on one instance of a spell works, or an exception to the general rule that lets you concentrate on two instances of a spell, in this specific case?

[Laolir]

This argument has merit.

But it is analogous to someone saying: “If you are correct and it is one spell cast at two targets, that can’t be right, because the spell in question can only have one target. Therefore twinning must create a second instance of the spell.

So they both have merit.

Well twinned explicitly tell you that you can target a second creature with the same spell, but never talk about casting anything. I can understand how "the same spell" can be read as another instance of the same spell, but it doesn't work with the text. You aren't allowed to cast a second spell, just to target a second creature (I never saw that you can't twin spells on object btw). The spell only have one target, and twinned allow you to choose a second. If it would have let you cast a copy, I think it would have said so.


Except that it explicitly states that you can concentrate on both. Is that a clarification of how concentrating on one instance of a spell works, or an exception to the general rule that lets you concentrate on two instances of a spell, in this specific case?

Sorry if I misunderstood what you said but, twinned spell never say that you can concentrate on two spells. Twinned doesn't talk about concentration at all. If you decide that it create a second copy of the spell, and if you decide that it allow you to cast it (and twinned only say that you can target a second creature, not cast anything), you still can't concentrate on two spell.

[BurgerBeast]

Well twinned explicitly tell you that you can target a second creature with the same spell, but never talk about casting anything.

Okay, so forget about twinned for a moment, and suppose someone says this:

“In yesterday’s session, this battle started against some orcs, and I cast hold person on one of the orcs. The next round, I targetted a second orc with the same spell...”

- this person explicitly told you that he targeted a second creature with the same spell. He never talked about casting anything (Edit: in the second round). Nevertheless, it is a valid inference.


I can understand how "the same spell" can be read as another instance of the same spell, but it doesn't work with the text.

Even when considering the above example?


You aren't allowed to cast a second spell, just to target a second creature (I never saw that you can't twin spells on object btw).

Right. But you’re also not allowed to target more than one creature with the spell. Twin Spell is somehow breaking one of these rules, by definition, but it’s not clear which it is breaking.


The spell only have one target, and twinned allow you to choose a second. If it would have let you cast a copy, I think it would have said so.

This is interpretation.


Sorry if I misunderstood what you said but, twinned spell never say that you can concentrate on two spells. Twinned doesn't talk about concentration at all. If you decide that it create a second copy of the spell, and if you decide that it allow you to cast it (and twinned only say that you can target a second creature, not cast anything), you still can't concentrate on two spell.

This is true. But it doesn’t clarify the text. It simply describes the consequences of each interpretation, and allows DMs who prefer one consequence over the other to choose the interpretation that leads to their preferred consequence (concentration/no concentration).

[BurgerBeast]

* I should point out that I also treat Twinned Spells as a single casting of one spell, with an extra target. However, the point remains: I think the text is ambiguous and I don’t think it would be correct to argue that a DM who plays it as a second casting is wrong.

[Laolir]

Okay, so forget about twinned for a moment, and suppose someone says this:

“In yesterday’s session, this battle started against some orcs, and I cast hold person on one of the orcs. The next round, I targeted a second orc with the same spell...”

- this person explicitly told you that he targeted a second creature with the same spell. He never talked about casting anything (Edit: in the second round). Nevertheless, it is a valid inference.

Even when considering the above example?

Targeting someone, and casting a spell on someone are, at least for me, two really different things. I know the mechanic of hold person, so this example sound really strange to me, but if you said this same phrase with a spell that I didn't know about, I would instantly think that it's a spell that work like minute meteor: you can use it again next round to "target" something else, not that you actually casted the spell again on someone else.

Yes even with the above example, I still can't see the casting of a second spell. But hey, the fact that I don't see any ambiguity doesn't mean there isn't one. I still think that the wording is correct for a lot of people (that's the first time that I see people talking about a second instance of the spell), and I don't know how you can word it without this ambiguity you see. You probably can, but do you need to?

[ThePolarBear]

* I should point out that I also treat Twinned Spells as a single casting of one spell, with an extra target. However, the point remains: I think the text is ambiguous and I don’t think it would be correct to argue that a DM who plays it as a second casting is wrong.

While i would not argue in play, i would bring up the issue outside of playtime, since the "second casting" interpretation is just a smidge above "there's an error in the text, it should say three" interpretation in regards to reasonability. Which is a prime factor when considering language.

It's pretty much discussing that an instance of the word "eat" means "to intend to forcefully bash" someone with lasagna when it appears in a text like:
"the mother offered lasagna to the child, saying "eat this"".

[BurgerBeast]

Targeting someone, and casting a spell on someone are, at least for me, two really different things. I know the mechanic of hold person, so this example sound really strange to me, but if you said this same phrase with a spell that I didn't know about, I would instantly think that it's a spell that work like minute meteor: you can use it again next round to "target" something else, not that you actually casted the spell again on someone else.

But this is, in some sense, exactly the point. Knowing the spell (based on explanations provided in the PHB) provides additional context, which reduces (if not eliminates) the ambiguity.

If it’s hold person -> read it as two castings.

If it’s meteor swarm -> read it as one casting.

That’s about as clear as can be that it’s ambiguous.

Twin Spell doesn’t give a spell-description-length explanation of its function. It only says what it says. So it’s not clear which way to read it if you don’t know which spell it’s talking about.


Yes even with the above example, I still can't see the casting of a second spell. But hey, the fact that I don't see any ambiguity doesn't mean there isn't one. I still think that the wording is correct for a lot of people (that's the first time that I see people talking about a second instance of the spell), and I don't know how you can word it without this ambiguity you see. You probably can, but do you need to?

I don’t go in for the idea that something can be “correct for a lot of people.” The truth isn’t determined by consensus.

Here’s an example of how it can be less ambiguous:

Twin spell allows the caster to cast one single-target spell against two targets. When cast in this way, the caster can maintain concentration on both targets because only one spell is cast.


While i would not argue in play, i would bring up the issue outside of playtime, since the "second casting" interpretation is just a smidge above "there's an error in the text, it should say three" interpretation in regards to reasonability. Which is a prime factor when considering language.

It's pretty much discussing that an instance of the word "eat" means "to intend to forcefully bash" someone with lasagna when it appears in a text like:
"the mother offered lasagna to the child, saying "eat this"".

I pretty much disagree with everything you’ve said here, including the underlying assumptions.

[ThePolarBear]

I pretty much disagree with everything you’ve said here, including the underlying assumptions.

So, you disagree with how context works. Ok.

[NaughtyTiger]

This is important to clear up a lot of the questions. There is no instance of an effect that attacks two creatures with the same roll. Even something like the Hunter's Whirlwind Strike has you make separate attack rolls against all of the creatures you're attacking at once.

there is at least 1 case.

Sweeping Attack. When you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one superiority dieto attempt to damage another creature with the same attack. Choose another creature within 5 feet of the original target and within your reach. If the original attack roll would hit the second creature, it takes damage equal to the number you roll on your superiority die. The damage is of the same type dealt by the original attack.



So, you disagree with how context works. Ok.

you conflated "eating lasagna" with "beating someone". The disagreement is over hyperbole and tone, not context dear.
EDIT: i misunderstood PolarBear's point that "eat this" may mean "punch someone".

[ThePolarBear]

you conflated "eating lasagna" with "beating someone". The disagreement is over hyperbole and tone, not context dear.

No, i just made clear that "Eat this" is a phrase that can be used as a a stock phrase with a different meaning to what is usually attributed to both "eat" and "this" together, and only by reading context one can be clear what the use for those words is intended.

The very same example can be put forward for "the same spell" in this situation. While not a stock phrase in and of itself, as correctly identified it can be used as indicating the very same instance of a spell or a different instance of the same named spell.

Nothing in context however supports the second reading, just like nothing supports "it's about to slam" for "eat this". On the other hand, "offered" either is used in the context of sacrifice (like, if the text was in written in a religious tone), or a simple gesture of kindness. This contextualises how you can reasonably read "eat this" correctly.

Was it an hyperbole? Yes. Do hyperbole never serve a point? No. It does in this instance.

Neither in the mom example or in the Twinned Spell example there's something supporting one reading of a part of the text, while there is something supporting the other.
No matter how you look at it, one reading is more reasonable than the other, and one of the two can exist only on a very specific meaning of a part of text and only when devoid of context.

So, yes. It is a matter of context. Because context is part of what defines tone to begin with.

And please, keep the condescending tone to yourself. Thanks.

[NaughtyTiger]

No, i just made clear that "Eat this" is a phrase that can be used as a a stock phrase with a different meaning to what is usually attributed to both "eat" and "this" together, and only by reading context one can be clear what the use for those words is intended.


And please, keep the condescending tone to yourself. Thanks.


ah... "eat this" is a phrase that means to punch someone. that was not clear, not in use in my area. that was a misunderstanding and i apologize.

and as far as condescending tone, yes, it sucks when people do it.
it makes things personal and takes away from your argument. so let's both ratchet it down.
i was going to call out your condescening tone, but editing my comment into a condescending one instead, it didn't help the situation.

my point would be stronger if I had been anywhere close to correct in my understanding of your original point.

[ThePolarBear]

ah... "eat this" is a phrase that means to punch someone. that was not clear, not in use in my area. that was a misunderstanding and i apologize.

and as far as condescending tone, yes, it sucks when people do it. it makes things personal and takes away from your argument. so let's both ratchet it down.
(my point would be stronger if I had been anywhere close to correct in my understanding of your point.)

Not a problem.

And it's not really "Punching someone", just a rude exclamation that can describe frustration or defiance or thousands of other feelings that is usually a rebuttal.

It usually goes as "xx this!", and can follow pretty much any occasions. A couple of people hitting on a third inappropriately, and the answer could very well be "*insertcommenthere* this" with rude gesture attached.

It is used in movies and books also when there's a big hit coming, and that's where i was going for in the example to exagerate the example.

[Man_Over_Game]

On the Twin Casting, one particular problem I see is that, in any circumstance where an ability says you can "Cast a spell", it either mentions an alternate way of casting that spell (Arcane Trickster's Mage Hand Legerdemain, for example), or it's implied that you cast the spell normally (such as the spells you get from a Warlock Invocation).

There is no specification as to what action you cast the Twinned Spell with, if it has you "cast" a second spell, so it's implied that you obey the same casting time as the original. This doesn't make any sense, because the only way you'd be able to cast the second spell is if you had 2 Bonus Actions (Impossible), or had 2 Actions.

Now, you CAN get 2 actions via Action Surge, but there's no reason to have Twinned Spell provide that for you at a cost, because you can already do that for free with Action Surge.



Either Twinned Spell lets you choose a second target with the same spell, or it does nothing. Which interpretation seems more reasonable?

[BurgerBeast]

So, you disagree with how context works. Ok.

I disagree with how you think context works, yes.

But that's really not what I said at all. I said I disagree with pretty much everything you said. By that I meant:

1. The second casting explanation is not just a smidge above "there's an error in the test, it should say three" in terms of reasonability
2. It's not necessarily true that you should bring any factor used in interpreting language into a discussion about a specific use of language
3. the lasagna analogy is not analogous


No, i just made clear that "Eat this" is a phrase that can be used as a a stock phrase with a different meaning to what is usually attributed to both "eat" and "this" together, and only by reading context one can be clear what the use for those words is intended.

But I'm not doing this with the word "same." I'm not relying on a different meaning of the word, and I am certainly not relying on a colloquialism or figurative meaning. I'm relying on the most common usage of the word, and the ambiguity presented by its use. So your analogy is a bad one.

I can say that my friend owns the same car as me if we both own dodge challengers. But then someone can rightly say, "actually, those are not the same car." And neither speaker is relying on the use of a different meaning. They are relying on differing levels of precision or exactitude.

It's more akin to saying that we live in the same place. One person agrees because we live in the same city. Another disagrees because we live in different houses.


The very same example can be put forward for "the same spell" in this situation. While not a stock phrase in and of itself, as correctly identified it can be used as indicating the very same instance of a spell or a different instance of the same named spell.

Yeah, not a stock phrase so... not analogous in this case. Not even a different meaning so... not analogous in this case.


Was it an hyperbole? Yes. Do hyperbole never serve a point? No. It does in this instance.

I don't mind hyperbole; in fact I quite like it. But hyperbole fails when the analogy fails. Hyperbole succeeds when the analogy succeeds. Your analogy fails. Thus, your hyperbole fails.


And please, keep the condescending tone to yourself. Thanks.

This is incredibly ripe. You literally spoke for me, saying that I "disagree with how context works," which would be a moronic thing for me to say, because it is nonsensical in the first place (context cannot have an opinion with which I might disagree) and is irrelevant in the second (context exists whether one agrees with it or not). Perhaps take your own advice.


On the Twin Casting, one particular problem I see is that, in any circumstance where an ability says you can "Cast a spell", it either mentions an alternate way of casting that spell (Arcane Trickster's Mage Hand Legerdemain, for example), or it's implied that you cast the spell normally (such as the spells you get from a Warlock Invocation).

But neither of these abilities claim that you do something with the same spell, which is the issue here. How can you cast a spell, and simultaneously target a different creature with the same spell? The general answer is: you can't. The specific exception is Twinned Spell. But all we know about Twinned Sepll is that is allows it. We don't know how it does so beyond: it's metamagic. So we have no decisive reason to choose between:

1. Same spell means the same instance of the spell you just cast: the ability modifies the spell to allow an additional target (which breaks the targeting rules of the spell); or
2. Same spell means the same ID as the spell you just cast: the ability casts a second copy of the spell, targeting the other creature (which breaks the action economy)

Both of these interpretations are within the boundaries of what is written and neither is excluded by what is written. This is true regardless of whether one interpretation is more reasonable than the other; and "more reasonable" is interpretation anyway (i.e. RAI not RAW).


There is no specification as to what action you cast the Twinned Spell with, if it has you "cast" a second spell, so it's implied that you obey the same casting time as the original.

No, it isn't. You spend the normal action-type casting the spell, that's true. You also spend the normal action-type on the use of metamagic. The normal action-cost for using metamagic is: zero.


This doesn't make any sense, because the only way you'd be able to cast the second spell is if you had 2 Bonus Actions (Impossible), or had 2 Actions.

This is interpretation. But its also a false dichotomy, because there is (at least) one other way you could do it: metamagic - which is precisely what we're talking about.


Either Twinned Spell lets you choose a second target with the same spell, or it does nothing. Which interpretation seems more reasonable?

I realize what you're trying to say here, but this is a pretty ironic thing to write, because:

I agree. Twinned spell does not do nothing. Twinned spell lets you choose a second target with the same spell.

So we're right back where we started: what do you mean by same spell?

[ThePolarBear]

But that's really not what I said at all. I said I disagree with pretty much everything you said. By that I meant:

1. The second casting explanation is not just a smidge above "there's an error in the test, it should say three" in terms of reasonability

And no reason was provided on why. It is, because it is unreasonable to rely on error to construct a meaning when there are meanings that work with the phrase and the rest of context. And relying on a decontextualised meaning is just above that, because it assumes that there's a lost implicit in the text. What you should take as reasonable is what is there to begin with, see if it works, and if it doesn't then look for other possible lost meanings.


2. It's not necessarily true that you should bring any factor used in interpreting language into a discussion about a specific use of language

Yes, you do. Expecially when those factors are in fact the context to the part you are analyzing. If context is what gives meaning, you cannot leave it out.


3. the lasagna analogy is not analogous

It is. Different meanings for same phrase. Context makes clear what meaning is used. Is fitting, pertinent, analogous.


But I'm not doing this with the word "same."

You are doing it for the phrase "same spell". Which can mean both the same instance or a different instance of the same abstract concept of the object.

The "same dish", to stay on lasagna-themed examples, might mean the same portion, the same cooking batch from which the portion was taken, or the fact that it is also lasagna, made with the same or a slightly different recipe.
The "same thing" applies to "same spell".


I'm not relying on a different meaning of the word, and I am certainly not relying on a colloquialism or figurative meaning. I'm relying on the most common usage of the word, and the ambiguity presented by its use. So your analogy is a bad one.

You are relying on ONE meaning of the phrase. What meaning the phrase has can only be derived by context.
If i were to simply state "the same spell" you would not be able to correctly identify what i actually mean.


I can say that my friend owns the same car as me if we both own dodge challengers. But then someone can rightly say, "actually, those are not the same car." And neither speaker is relying on the use of a different meaning. They are relying on differing levels of precision or exactitude.

Or, you know, different meanings for the same phrase. The context being unclear and insufficient to identify what you mean.
In this case, however, it is. You both own your own dodge challenger. Because if you meant "we co-own", you made a mistake.


It's more akin to saying that we live in the same place. One person agrees because we live in the same city. Another disagrees because we live in different houses.

The interpretation of the sentence, once again, relies on context. If the first person was speaking about cities, then the context makes it clear that "same place" refers to city, with no intended meaning for "place" to be "home", like what can be found when a person tells you to "come to my place". That's exactly what i'm telling you are doing: decontextualising "the same spell".


Yeah, not a stock phrase so... not analogous in this case. Not even a different meaning so... not analogous in this case.

And a deeper disagreement furthermore! You do not agree that "the same spell" can mean two different things now? Because it either means "the same instance", or "another instance of the same", and those are two different meanings. Or you disagree with "Eat this" is used as i described, at all, and to indicate someone offering food, making it two different meanings?

I made my argument plenty clear. You do not agree. That's it.
You also say that "it cannot be wrong". I say it is plenty wrong. You do not accept it. I'm not here to force you change your mind.


This is incredibly ripe. You literally spoke for me, saying that I "disagree with how context works,"

No, i didn't. I did not say you said that "you said you disagree etc". That's just the conclusion i reached with your hyperbolic "disagree on pretty much everything" answer, which really doesn't clarify what you disagree with like this post does.
You say that "the same spell" might mean a different casting of a spell with the same name. Which is fine, it could exist as a meaning.
You, however, exclude context to fortify the meaning a phrase can have when read outside of it, thus making it as correct as another. However, language interpretation relies on context, and context exists and points to a different, equally valid meaning for the same string of words. So, by proposing the second solution as acceptable, you do not consider the rest to be contextual to that phrase, or do not care about context at all. You disagree with how context works in language.


which would be a moronic thing for me to say, because it is nonsensical in the first place (context cannot have an opinion with which I might disagree) and is irrelevant in the second (context exists whether one agrees with it or not). Perhaps take your own advice.

Where did i say that context has an opinion? Where did is say you said it? How do you even conclude this?
You disagree on the rules about language on the workings of intepretation of context, and/or either willingly or unwillingly choose to not apply them. If you were, you would not say something like "I don’t think it would be correct to argue that a DM who plays it as a second casting is wrong."
So, yeah. you do not agree on the rules governing interpretation of text and context, since i'm cutting you some "basic decency package" in assuming that you are a reasonable, honest person which when pointed out to a problem doesn't hide behind a finger, nor willingly tries to "win an arguement" by hosing logic and commonly used and accepted language rules. It is wrong. Because it's a reading that can only exist when it is decontextualized from the source.

Or is the assumption that you are honest and reasonable something you disagree with, too?

[BurgerBeast]

@The PolarBear: Again, we disagree about pretty much everything. Our disagreements are so fundamental that there's almost no point in discussing it.

It appears that we disagree about the purpose of language, the extent of applicability of context, and perhaps even more fundamentally the nature of particular truth (absolute versus relative).

Rather than go down each rabbit hole, we could focus in on something, but I fear that inevitably it can only lead through the disagreements mentioned above, until you anchor your claim to relative truth, I anchor mine to absolute, and we end off right where I predicted.

Some examples of what I mean:


And no reason was provided on why.

You said this in response to:


But that's really not what I said at all. I said I disagree with pretty much everything you said. By that I meant:

1. The second casting explanation is not just a smidge above "there's an error in the test, it should say three" in terms of reasonability

So, in response to me saying that I think you're wrong, your response is that I need to provide evidence.

We seem to disagree even on what evidence it used for. Evidence is not required to disagree with someone. Evidence is required to prove something to someone.


Yes, you do. Expecially when those factors are in fact the context to the part you are analyzing. If context is what gives meaning, you cannot leave it out.

Which you have written as if it is a rebuttal, but it fits
with what I said.



It is. Different meanings for same phrase. Context makes clear what meaning is used. Is fitting, pertinent, analogous.

No, it's not. The reason it's not analogous is because your analogy relies on a figurative or colloquial meaning. Mine does not.

It's also arguable that I am not using two different meanings of "same," but a more specified version of the same meaning.

As in:

"That guy is strong."
"I see."
"No, I don't think you do. He is strong. Like Olympic champion weightlifter strong."
"Oh. Now I get you."

- The meaning of "strong" is not different, here. It's just a difference in degree or specificity or exactitude.

Similarly, you could say that two people drew the same thing, and there is a range of degrees of what you mean, ranging from "they both drew a flower" to they drew exactly the same flower.

Contrast this with: "All three of them drew a float." Where one person drew a fishing float, one drew a parade float, and one drew a rootbeer float.

Those are different meanings.


Or, you know, different meanings for the same phrase. The context being unclear and insufficient to identify what you mean.
In this case, however, it is. You both own your own dodge challenger. Because if you meant "we co-own", you made a mistake.

See how this problem is probably not resolvable? That's not a mistake, in my view. If my friend and I co-own a dodge challenger, then I own a dodge challenger, and my friend owns the same car as me.

That's true.


Where did i say that context has an opinion?

I was being pedantic. You said:


So, you disagree with how context works. Ok.

How exactly does one disagree with "how context works"?

Does "how context works" have an opinion? If not, then how can I disagree with "how context works"?

-- of course, you would say that I should be able to understand what you meant, because you obviously didn't mean that I literally disagree with "how context works." - And that's true.

But you've not provided any context for me to make sense of what you've said. I only know that you meant something different than what you wrote. What you actually meant is anyone's guess. Lack of context is not the same as context. For me to invent a context (even a charitable one; in fact even one that turned out to be true) would be speculation.

-- and I would say that you wrote something different than what you meant. If you wished for me to have context, you should have provided it.


So, I think we should focus on this, even though we'll probably not get anywhere:


If i were to simply state "the same spell" you would not be able to correctly identify what i actually mean.

Exactly. And that's all we have. If you think that there is enough information in the description of Twinned Spell to provide enough context to prove that they meant "instance of the spell," as opposed to "spell ID," then I'd like to hear it.


The interpretation of the sentence, once again, relies on context. If the first person was speaking about cities, then the context makes it clear that "same place" refers to city, with no intended meaning for "place" to be "home", like what can be found when a person tells you to "come to my place". That's exactly what i'm telling you are doing: decontextualising "the same spell".

I understand. But you're seeing a context that I am saying is not there.

We have a clear criteria now to see who is right and who is wrong. If the context is provided, you are right (i.e. I am de-contextualizing). If the context is not provided, I am right (i.e. you are adding context when there is none).

So, where exactly is this context? I don't think there is one. I think you're speculating.