New Errata / Sage Advice

[Daithi]

They released a new New Errata / Sage Advice. I looked on the front page here and didn't see it mentioned, so hopefully I didn't just miss it. In any event, here's the link---

https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf

[BurgerBeast]

Is it just me (I took a quick scan of the document) or is there nothing [NEW] here?

[Ortho]

Is it just me (I took a quick scan of the document) or is there nothing [NEW] here?

There is. You have to click the links on the first page to find the bulk of the new stuff; it's just not on the Sage Advice document. I think the XGtE and MToF stuff is completely new.
Also, there's a clarification on Twinned Spells.

[SociopathFriend]

Hmm- a shame the Twinned Spell errata wasn't also given something to shut down the, "I target a point in space, not a creature" loophole that was used on one of my DMs to allow Twinned Fireball.

[Nagog]

Hmm- a shame the Twinned Spell errata wasn't also given something to shut down the, "I target a point in space, not a creature" loophole that was used on one of my DMs to allow Twinned Fireball.

But it does, it says one of the requirements of the spell is "is incapable of targeting more than one creature at the
spell’s current level", and since Fireball can target a great deal many people at any level it's cast, Fireball cannot be Twinned.

[SociopathFriend]

But it does, it says one of the requirements of the spell is "is incapable of targeting more than one creature at the
spell’s current level", and since Fireball can target a great deal many people at any level it's cast, Fireball cannot be Twinned.

The argument that was made is the player doesn't "target a creature" but a point in space and so he can Twin the Fireball.
That said it actually does list later on in the pdf the following phrase:

If you know this rule yet are still unsure whether a particular spell qualifies for Twinned Spell, consult with your DM,
who has the final say. If the two of you are curious about
our design intent, here is the list of things that disqualify a
spell for us:
• The spell has a range of self.
• The spell can target an object.
• The spell allows you to choose more than one creature
to be affected by it, particularly at the level you’re casting
the spell. Some spells increase their number of potential
targets when you cast them at a higher level.
• The spell can force more than one creature to make a
saving throw before the spell’s duration expires.
• The spell lets you make a roll of any kind that can
affect more than one creature before the spell’s duration expires.

So I'll be downloading that particular pdf.

The DM most likely regrets that decision mind you but he values consistent use of rules so he's stuck with it thus far.
But I'm a tad more willing to say I told him so over this particular issue given the Sorcerer utterly destroyed every encounter until fairly recently because of it.

[Nagog]

Oh wow, they seriously reigned in Healing Spirit. “The spirit can heal a number of times
equal to 1 + your spellcasting ability modifier (minimum of
twice). After healing that number of times, the spirit disappears.”

It's gone from the most broken thing on the Druid's list to a slow burn mid-tier heal. Still good out of combat, but no longer the combat juggernaut it used to be.

[Eragon123]

It's gone from the most broken thing on the Druid's list to a slow burn mid-tier heal. Still good out of combat, but no longer the combat juggernaut it used to be.

Idk if it ever was a combat juggernaut, but it also is much worse for rangers now as they tend to increase Wisdom after Dexterity.

[Nagog]

Idk if it ever was a combat juggernaut, but it also is much worse for rangers now as they tend to increase Wisdom after Dexterity.

Very true. Rangers can no longer fill the go-to healer spot unless they seriously buff that.

I've also noticed they amended the Warlock Invocation text regarding level requirements to be "Level in this class", which bums me out a bit. No longer can I gain a second attack with my Paladin2/Warlock3 build. Or you know, Levitate at will for my Wizard 7/Warlock 2. Which was a blast btw.

[Daithi]

Is it just me (I took a quick scan of the document) or is there nothing [NEW] here?

At the top there's also links to Errata for the Player's Handbook, XGtE, MToF, Out of the Abyss, and older errata.

[Daithi]

Oh wow, they seriously reigned in Healing Spirit. “The spirit can heal a number of times
equal to 1 + your spellcasting ability modifier (minimum of
twice). After healing that number of times, the spirit disappears.”

It's gone from the most broken thing on the Druid's list to a slow burn mid-tier heal. Still good out of combat, but no longer the combat juggernaut it used to be.

They straight up nerfed this spell. On the other hand, it was too powerful, and I can understand the Clerics who were pretty ticked about this spell.

[RSP]

At the top there's also links to Errata for the Player's Handbook, XGtE, MToF, Out of the Abyss, and older errata.

In the link for each book, you can see which ones have a “2020” errata.

[MaxWilson]

They straight up nerfed this spell. On the other hand, it was too powerful, and I can understand the Clerics who were pretty ticked about this spell.

Yeah. It still has a great action economy though, and can be used to stabilize allies without interfering with offensive spellcasting (Erupting Earth, Blight, Contagion) or wildshaped attacks, but it's now mostly a combat spell instead of the ultimate anti-attrition out-of-combat spell.

Now Aura of Vitality is once again king of the healing hill. Lore Bards and Jorasco halflings can be happy, and clerics can stop feeling left out (i.e. clerics can stop being the worst class at healing, out of all classes which are capable of healing).

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'm just sitting here thankful that having necrotic resistance no longer makes Life Transference worse.

[JackPhoenix]

Hmm- a shame the Twinned Spell errata wasn't also given something to shut down the, "I target a point in space, not a creature" loophole that was used on one of my DMs to allow Twinned Fireball.

You mean like "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn't have a range of self", which is the the first sentence of Twinned since 1st printing? If you don't target a creature, you can't use Twinned. The latter errata that clarifies the spell can't even be capable of targetting multiple creatures is there to stop you from using it on Magic Missile or level 5+ Eldritch Blast if you target all the attacks at a single target.

Edit: what I find hilarious in retrospect, because they've errata'd it out, is that tiny creatures could use heavy weapons without disadvantage. Why didn't I notice that before?

[No brains]

I've got beef with the nerf on Holy Weapon. It's still a pretty good spell and they made made the bomb effect originate from the weapon, but what gets affected by it is pretty wonky.

If I cast Holy Weapon on an ally and I decide I want to use the bomb feature, I have to see every one of my targets. If my fighter ally turns a corner from me, all the enemies around them are safe from the explosion. I understand that the intent of choosing targets keeps an ally from exploding with the weapon, but if it used Spirit Guardians' wording of choosing exempted creatures rather than choosing targets, that would make more sense.

I also get that there are concerns with a fire and forget AoE that can travel for an hour on the way to its target (have a Giant Eagle fly at 160 feet a turn and drop a dagger bomb), but Glyph of Warding and Scrying fix that and Dream is also a 5th-level spell that doesn't care about line of effect.

[SociopathFriend]

You mean like "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn't have a range of self", which is the the first sentence of Twinned since 1st printing? If you don't target a creature, you can't use Twinned. The latter errata that clarifies the spell can't even be capable of targetting multiple creatures is there to stop you from using it on Magic Missile or level 5+ Eldritch Blast if you target all the attacks at a single target.


Don't look at me- I lost that argument when I made it and the Sorcerer argued otherwise.
I didn't like the ruling when the DM made it and haven't liked it in the year since with the Sorcerer Twin-Fireballing every encounter into being over the second it was his turn.
Which is why I've now adopted the practice of telling the DM when new errata and Unearthed Arcana are up in the hopes of him seeing something like my previously bolded text to let him know, "Yep- he was right and you shouldn't be Twin-Spelling that."

[Luccan]

Edit: what I find hilarious in retrospect, because they've errata'd it out, is that tiny creatures could use heavy weapons without disadvantage. Why didn't I notice that before?

Probably because players can't be Tiny. The closest you could get would be a familiar... Do people arm their familiars? I know regular ones can't Attack, but Chain Pact can.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Probably because players can't be Tiny. The closest you could get would be a familiar... Do people arm their familiars? I know regular ones can't Attack, but Chain Pact can.

Reduce allows a player character who is small to instead be tiny. They probably never bothered making the distinction before because the same spell that would allow a small player character to do this could make them medium sized instead.

My guess is that this errata is made almost entirely with combating the silliness in mind and not with balance, as I'm really struggling to find any reason a player would want to do this.

[sithlordnergal]

Probably because players can't be Tiny. The closest you could get would be a familiar... Do people arm their familiars? I know regular ones can't Attack, but Chain Pact can.

...I now want to make a Pixie Barbarian that swings a Greatsword around like it is nothing.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Reduce allows a player character who is small to instead be tiny. They probably never bothered making the distinction before because the same spell that would allow a small player character to do this could make them medium sized instead.

My guess is that this errata is made almost entirely with combating the silliness in mind and not with balance, as I'm really struggling to find any reason a player would want to do this.

Climb onto bigger creature.

Tiny Halfling Barbarian (wolf) on a Small halfling monk (for stunning) on a medium human paladin (for Cha to saves and healing) on a enlarged Half-Orc barbarian (ancestral guardian).

Welcome to Mario 3D World, suckas.


Edit: You get advantage on attacks from the wolf totem barbarian, the Monk can stun creatures, the human can heal and protect people (take sentinel and/or protection style) and the other barbarian is a pretty good barbarian.

You're basically the D&D version of Voltron.

[Dark.Revenant]

Am I mistaken, or does this make Fire Bolt ineligible for Twinned Spell, by the virtue that it can target an object?

[Greywander]

Am I mistaken, or does this make Fire Bolt ineligible for Twinned Spell, by the virtue that it can target an object?
No, it just can't be capable of targeting more than one creature, which it isn't. One might argue that it can't be twinned while targeting an object, only when targeting a creature, but that's unlikely to come up.

[Dark.Revenant]

No, it just can't be capable of targeting more than one creature, which it isn't. One might argue that it can't be twinned while targeting an object, only when targeting a creature, but that's unlikely to come up.


[H]ere is the list of things that disqualify a spell for us:
...
• The spell can target an object.
...

Sorry to be pedantic, but "one creature or object" is, as a set, more than "one creature".

Put in other terms, the intent for Twinned Spell doesn't seem to be, inclusively, that a spell is twinnable if it can only target one creature. Rather, it seems to mean "A spell is twinnable only if it affects—and can only affect—one single creature other than yourself, and nothing else."

[Greywander]

Sorry to be pedantic, but "one creature or object" is, as a set, more than "one creature".

Put in other terms, the intent for Twinned Spell doesn't seem to be, inclusively, that a spell is twinnable if it can only target one creature. Rather, it seems to mean "A spell is twinnable only if it affects—and can only affect—one single creature other than yourself, and nothing else."
I think "more" means "numerically more". As in, it can't be a spell that could target two or three creatures. Only one creature. Perhaps Twinned Spell isn't meant to work when targeting objects, but nothing I've seen prevents it from working just because a spell is capable of targeting objects. The only question in play seems to be, "how many creatures can the spell target?" If the answer is zero (only targets objects) or two or more, then it can't be twinned. If the spell only targets one creature, it can be twinned, even if the spell could also be used to target an object.

Edit: Actually, as long as a spell isn't capable of targeting more than one creature, it looks like it could be twinned when targeting objects. EB can't be twinned even if each ray is sent to the same target, because it is capable of targeting more than one creature. The fact that you're only targeting one creature with that casting doesn't matter, only that the spell is capable of targeting more than one creature. Likewise, a spell like Fire Bolt is only capable of targeting one creature, so it seems like it could be twinned, even if you were targeting objects.

[Luccan]

Sorry to be pedantic, but "one creature or object" is, as a set, more than "one creature".

Put in other terms, the intent for Twinned Spell doesn't seem to be, inclusively, that a spell is twinnable if it can only target one creature. Rather, it seems to mean "A spell is twinnable only if it affects—and can only affect—one single creature other than yourself, and nothing else."

The question is, was this their actual intent or is it something they're gonna have to errata back later? Because there is little argument that Fire Bolt is the Sorcerer's strongest damaging cantrip and I can't imagine they intended it to be unaffected by Twin Spell. They probably forgot it can target objects, since other damage cantrips don't really do that.

[MaxWilson]

Am I mistaken, or does this make Fire Bolt ineligible for Twinned Spell, by the virtue that it can target an object?

Yes, but WotC in the same article encourages you to ignore their suggestions when they're dumb, so ask your DM if they think outlawing Twinned Firebolt because it can target objects too is dumb. I think it's dumb, and the rules (not Sage Advice) don't say otherwise, so you can still do it in my games.

I wouldn't let you Twin Glyph of Warding but that's different.

[Garfunion]

I’m sorry but, this twin-spell metamagic discussion is reaching a point to where it would be much easier for them to officially announce a list of spells that twin-spell metamagic will work with. Thus eliminating nearly all of the, “but what about this spell”.

[Lyracian]

Now Aura of Vitality is once again king of the healing hill. Lore Bards and Jorasco halflings can be happy, and clerics can stop feeling left out (i.e. clerics can stop being the worst class at healing, out of all classes which are capable of healing).
Aura is back to doing the most healing but Spirit still has some advantages
Action economy since it is a bonus to cast and free to heal vs action to cast and bonus to heal
Double the range 60’ vs 30’
Can heal more than once a round
Improved healing when you up scale; also compared to Aura you can down scale to level 2.

For me the drawback is needing the 20 casting stat to get the six heals. As a spell it is very dependent on good stats. I do not mind that since I max casting stat but Rangers suffer again.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I’m sorry but, this twin-spell metamagic discussion is reaching a point to where it would be much easier for them to officially announce a list of spells that twin-spell metamagic will work with. Thus eliminating nearly all of the, “but what about this spell”.

I think twin spell is pretty clear.

Twinned Spell

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, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell's current level. For example, magic missile and scorching ray aren't eligible, but ray of frost and chromatic orb are.

++++

A point in space is not a creature.

An object is not a creature.

We can see this because of...

Making an Attack
Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.

1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.

And

Targets
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).
Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise.


So, if the spell targets only one creature, you can twin it. If it targets a location or object, you can't.

Spells that can target both creatures and objects is tricky because you get a choice.

Spells that target a space always targets a space unless a more specific rule comes about.

Fireball targets a location, not a creature.


Fireball
3rd-level evocation

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 150 feet
Components: V, S, M (a tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur)
Duration: Instantaneous

A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried.

At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot level above 3rd.

+++

Point within range is a location not a creature.

[Daithi]

I think twin spell is pretty clear... [snip]

I'm with you. It seems pretty clear RAW and RAI at this point.

It is interesting that it still works with Eldritch Blast, but only at levels 1 to 4 when EB is firing a single bolt.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'm with you. It seems pretty clear RAW and RAI at this point.

It is interesting that it still works with Eldritch Blast, but only at levels 1 to 4 when EB is firing a single bolt.

The probably changed EB late process (they did btw, I liked the playtest version better) and didn't think too much of it when they haphazardly threw in feats and think what would happen if a sorcerer grabbed it.

A lot of 5e looks like they didn't go back over the rules and just assumed everything was on the same page.

Edit: 5e, phb, is not a complete game.

[Garfunion]

I think twin spell is pretty clear.
Oh I think it is pretty clear to me too but there are still to many players/DMs using it wrong. Which is why we have a sage advice about it.

[Contrast]

I'm intrigued by the Twin Sage Advice.


The spell lets you make a roll of any kind that can affect more than one creature before the spell’s duration expires.

This for example taken literally would rule out Enhance Ability, Enlarge/Reduce, Greater Invisibility, Polymorph, etc etc. Honestly given the restrictions laid out it would probably be faster to just write out the list of spells it does work for.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'm intrigued by the Twin Sage Advice.



This for example taken literally would rule out Enhance Ability, Enlarge/Reduce, Greater Invisibility, Polymorph, etc etc. Honestly given the restrictions laid out it would probably be faster to just write out the list of spells it does work for.

Not really.

At least some of those spells only target one creature when cast at it's lowest possible slot.

For enlarge person, and I'm mostly trying to get what they're trying to say (badly), the extra damage isn't you rolling it. The extra damage is the target being enhanced. When cast out of a second level slot, that enhancement only targets one creature, the target of the spell.

Same with enhance ability, YOU aren't making a roll that effects multiple creatures. You're giving a creature the ability to enhance themselves.

[Master O'Laughs]

But Enlarge/Reduce runs into the issue of being able to affect objects. I agree they should just list the spells that are twinnable. sigh, this is getting more stupid the more often they try to clarify their "intent".

[Contrast]

Same with enhance ability, YOU aren't making a roll that effects multiple creatures. You're giving a creature the ability to enhance themselves.

According to that argument you could Twin Dragon Breath though. They ruled you couldn't Twin Dragon Breath and they now appear to be doubling down on and reinforcing that way of interpreting by suggesting the possibility of any rolls of any kind that can, over the course of the spell, affect more than one target should make a spell ineligable.

For clarity I am assuming all spells cast at their base level, not upcast.

Also, note that being able to target yourself and having a range of self are two different things. Is your argument that the 'you' there is intended to mean you can Twin Enlarge on two other people but not yourself and one other person for example?

[RSP]

According to that argument you could Twin Dragon Breath though. They ruled you couldn't Twin Dragon Breath and they now appear to be doubling down on and reinforcing that way of interpreting by suggesting the possibility of any rolls of any kind that can, over the course of the spell, affect more than one target should make a spell ineligable.

Their arguments never made sense to me.

DB has a single Target. The spell allows the target to affect other characters in ways they couldn’t with out the spell, including damage.

Haste has a single target. The spell allows the target to affect other creatures in ways they couldn’t with out the spell, including damage.

Enlarge has a single target. The spell allows the target to affect other creatures in ways they couldn’t with out the spell, including damage.

Etc.

[Luccan]

How to not say this sarcastically... It occurs to me that the use of Twin Spell being weakened from how most people seem to assume it works would be entirely in keeping with how the class tends to be treated.

[Master O'Laughs]

How to not say this sarcastically... It occurs to me that the use of Twin Spell being weakened from how most people seem to assume it works would be entirely in keeping with how the class tends to be treated.

Too True. Only full casting class with competing resources that leads either to not being able to use the extra features or casting less spells than any other full casting class.

[Segev]

Probably because players can't be Tiny. The closest you could get would be a familiar... Do people arm their familiars? I know regular ones can't Attack, but Chain Pact can.

There's tiny servant. Third level spell, animates a tiny object and expressly gives it arms and legs. So it could wield a weapon.



It strikes me that all of the weird questions and arguably-broken uses of dragon's breath extend from the fact that it can be cast on another creature. If it were a spell that just said that, for its duration, you can exhale the AoE, it now is unambiguous about what "the target [of the spell]" is (all your victims), and eliminates such questions as whether a familiar counts as "attacking" when using it. I am allowing the wizard in the ToA game to have his owl familiar be the target of it, and it is one of his more effective spells because of this. (Even if it does tend to get his familiar targeted; he works very hard to use the 60 ft. movement to keep the owl out of enemy reach/sight when not attacking, but readied actions are a thing....)

Due to this, I'm very surprised they haven't nerfed dragon's breath by making it not "self" target spell, but rather just a spell that, while active, can be used multiple times by the caster.

[Contrast]

Their arguments never made sense to me.

For clarity I totally agree, the DB ruling never made sense to me and I wouldn't rule that way if I were running a game (nor am I personally going to start ruling that Twin doesn't work on the spells I mentioned above).

That said, I do play a bit of AL and for those purposes this Sage Advice has left me less clear on what I should expect to work rather than more which is...unfortunate, particularly as I get the impression this was meant to set the issue to rest on their end.

[Witty Username]

It gets worse with find steed and "targets only you", which does not mean target: self because of all these rulings.

[Zalabim]

Their arguments never made sense to me.

DB has a single Target. The spell allows the target to affect other characters in ways they couldn’t with out the spell, including damage.

Haste has a single target. The spell allows the target to affect other creatures in ways they couldn’t with out the spell, including damage.
That's not true at all. Everything haste grants the target already exists in chapter 9: Combat in the PHB. It doesn't grant any new ways of doing anything. Everything that Dragon's breath grants is on page 154 of Xanathar's Guide to Everything. It doesn't exist without the spell. The target is using the spell to deal damage. The target of Haste is using the normal rules for attacks, movement, objects, Actions, etc. They're not the same thing.

You're also assuming your conclusion. You're intentionally making nonsense instead of honestly trying to make sense.

[Boci]

That's not true at all. Everything haste grants the target already exists in chapter 9: Combat in the PHB. It doesn't grant any new ways of doing anything. Everything that Dragon's breath grants is on page 154 of Xanathar's Guide to Everything. It doesn't exist without the spell. The target is using the spell to deal damage. The target of Haste is using the normal rules for attacks, movement, objects, Actions, etc. They're not the same thing.

You're also assuming your conclusion. You're intentionally making nonsense instead of honestly trying to make sense.

But the targetting portion of the two spells it still just one:

"You touch one willing creature"

"Choose a willing creature that you can see within range"

They both specify one willing creature. One would assume therefor, that they both target one willing creature, so why can only one be twinned?

[MaxWilson]

That's not true at all. Everything haste grants the target already exists in chapter 9: Combat in the PHB. It doesn't grant any new ways of doing anything. Everything that Dragon's breath grants is on page 154 of Xanathar's Guide to Everything. It doesn't exist without the spell. The target is using the spell to deal damage. The target of Haste is using the normal rules for attacks, movement, objects, Actions, etc. They're not the same thing.

You're also assuming your conclusion. You're intentionally making nonsense instead of honestly trying to make sense.

From Sage Advice:

Can my sorcerer use Twinned Spell to affect a particular spell? You can use Twinned Spell on a spell that …

• targets only one creature
• doesn’t have a range of self
• is incapable of targeting more than one creature at the
spell’s current level

If you know this rule yet are still unsure whether a particular spell qualifies for Twinned Spell, consult with your DM, who has the final say. If the two of you are curious about our design intent, here is the list of things that disqualify a spell for us:

• The spell has a range of self.
• The spell can target an object.
• The spell allows you to choose more than one creature
to be affected by it, particularly at the level you’re casting
the spell. Some spells increase their number of potential
targets when you cast them at a higher level.
• The spell can force more than one creature to make a
saving throw before the spell’s duration expires.
• The spell lets you make a roll of any kind that can
affect more than one creature before the spell’s duration expires.

I know it's a corner case, but I think there is at least one case where these guidelines would lead to Haste being ineligible for Haste: Hasting a Battlemaster who knows the Sweeping Attack maneuver. This is because:

Sweeping Attack
When you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to 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.

Ergo your attack roll granted by Haste can affect multiple creatures, and would be eligible for Twinning if the DM actually used WotC's suggestion (which they shouldn't in this case).

It's possible that there are also cases where regular Shoving or a Pushing Attack could have a similar effect, e.g. a Shove or Pushing Attack which has the potential to make one bad guy fall off a building on top of another creature (even a PC). It's not entirely clear if Haste can be used to Shove though--ask your DM.

Anyway, I'm glad Sage Advice did the right thing in this case and referred the matter back to the DM.

[Segev]

That's not true at all. Everything haste grants the target already exists in chapter 9: Combat in the PHB. It doesn't grant any new ways of doing anything. Everything that Dragon's breath grants is on page 154 of Xanathar's Guide to Everything. It doesn't exist without the spell. The target is using the spell to deal damage. The target of Haste is using the normal rules for attacks, movement, objects, Actions, etc. They're not the same thing.

You're also assuming your conclusion. You're intentionally making nonsense instead of honestly trying to make sense.

To be totally pedantic, this doesn't address the issue where enlarge deals damage to multiple targets by virtue of the extra d4 it grants the beneficiary.

In all fairness, though, dragon's breath forces creatures to make saves using your save DC. Enlarge and haste do not.

But still, I think the main problem is less Twin and more dragon's breath. Even so, I am not house ruling it; the PCs enjoy it and it has not unbalanced the game more than any other stuff the PCs already are doing.

[RSP]

That's not true at all. Everything haste grants the target already exists in chapter 9: Combat in the PHB. It doesn't grant any new ways of doing anything. Everything that Dragon's breath grants is on page 154 of Xanathar's Guide to Everything. It doesn't exist without the spell. The target is using the spell to deal damage. The target of Haste is using the normal rules for attacks, movement, objects, Actions, etc. They're not the same thing.

You're also assuming your conclusion. You're intentionally making nonsense instead of honestly trying to make sense.

It is true. Haste let’s you do what you couldn’t before. If nothing else, there an extra attack it grants, which is not something you can do without Haste being applied (that is, if you’re a 5th level greatsword using Fighter, you get 2 attacks a round. When hasted, you get 3. That 3rd Attack is something you can’t do without Haste). Or as you want it laid out “The target is using the spell to deal damage.” That is, the target is using Haste (and the extra action granted) to deal damage. You said this is what DB does, and it is, in fact, what Haste does.

Also, Haste specifically fails the “The spell lets you make a roll of any kind that can
affect more than one creature before the spell’s duration expires“ rule, as that extra attack can potentially affect 10 different creatures over the duration of the spell.

And, if you’re actually arguing that DB let’s you do a type of action that is otherwise incapable of being done, well that has nothing to do with the twin rules, but also would mean you could twin DB on Dragonborn characters, as they can already do that type of action (breath weapon).

[Segev]

It is true. Haste let’s you do what you couldn’t before. If nothing else, there an extra attack it grants, which is not something you can do without Haste being applied (that is, if you’re a 5th level greatsword using Fighter, you get 2 attacks a round. When hasted, you get 3. That 3rd Attack is something you can’t do without Haste). Or as you want it laid out “The target is using the spell to deal damage.” That is, the target is using Haste (and the extra action granted) to deal damage. You said this is what DB does, and it is, in fact, what Haste does.

Also, Haste specifically fails the “The spell lets you make a roll of any kind that can
affect more than one creature before the spell’s duration expires“ rule, as that extra attack can potentially affect 10 different creatures over the duration of the spell.

And, if you’re actually arguing that DB let’s you do a type of action that is otherwise incapable of being done, well that has nothing to do with the twin rules, but also would mean you could twin DB on Dragonborn characters, as they can already do that type of action (breath weapon).

Arguing it based on fiddly wording is probably a losing propsition anyway with most DMs, but to play that game anyway, the distinction is that "an extra action that can only be an attack [or a few other things]" doesn't use the caster's stats in any way; the actual attack is coming from the target, not being dealt to the target, and at no point is the spell describing the mechanics of the attack being done to the attack's target.

Dragon's breath, on the other hand, describes in the spell description what damage is being done, and uses the caster's numbers. The AoE and damage are clearly the spell's effects, unlike the attack from the haste spell.

But again, I'm not making a strong argument, here; just illustrating where people might come from.

In practice, it'll be a DM's call.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

According to that argument you could Twin Dragon Breath though. They ruled you couldn't Twin Dragon Breath and they now appear to be doubling down on and reinforcing that way of interpreting by suggesting the possibility of any rolls of any kind that can, over the course of the spell, affect more than one target should make a spell ineligable.

For clarity I am assuming all spells cast at their base level, not upcast.

Also, note that being able to target yourself and having a range of self are two different things. Is your argument that the 'you' there is intended to mean you can Twin Enlarge on two other people but not yourself and one other person for example?

Dragon Breath is a splat book spell, I always assume that spells from splat books are special cases because they weren't made at the time of the PHB and so get some flexibility based on the rules.

When making something a couple years later, you will have issues. It's less forgivable if you make something at the same time and then screw it up because you didn't edit/double check your current work.

Though, my favorite part about twin spell out of all of this, is that I never take it. Twin Spell is good for "fake upcasting" some spells and damage... But I prefer other metamagics.

[Luccan]

Dragon Breath is a splat book spell, I always assume that spells from splat books are special cases because they weren't made at the time of the PHB and so get some flexibility based on the rules.

When making something a couple years later, you will have issues. It's less forgivable if you make something at the same time and then screw it up because you didn't edit/double check your current work.

Though, my favorite part about twin spell out of all of this, is that I never take it. Twin Spell is good for "fake upcasting" some spells and damage... But I prefer other metamagics.

Mostly it's really nice for buffer sorcerers. But apparently playing those is wrong

[Boci]

Dragon Breath is a splat book spell, I always assume that spells from splat books are special cases because they weren't made at the time of the PHB and so get some flexibility based on the rules.

When making something a couple years later, you will have issues. It's less forgivable if you make something at the same time and then screw it up because you didn't edit/double check your current work.

Though, my favorite part about twin spell out of all of this, is that I never take it. Twin Spell is good for "fake upcasting" some spells and damage... But I prefer other metamagics.

The things I don't get if, why did they need to change anything? Was twinned dragon's breath broken? Because if not then, why not just leave it be like they did with all other metamagic?

[Luccan]

The things I don't get if, why did they need to change anything? Was twinned dragon's breath broken? Because if not then, why not just leave it be like they did with all other metamagic?

Potentially 60d6 damage over the course of the spell, but it requires concentration, saves for half, and a fight has to last that long, which many fights at many tables don't do.

[Boci]

Potentially 60d6 damage over the course of the spell, but it requires concentration, saves for half, and a fight has to last that long, which many fights at many tables don't do.

And that takes the actions of two PCs. I guess with followers it could maybe be abused, but otherwise it doesn't seem problematic.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Mostly it's really nice for buffer sorcerers. But apparently playing those is wrong

Yup, buff/debuff Sorcerers are rad. I love a decent controller sorcerer.

Careful Spell is amazing.



The things I don't get if, why did they need to change anything? Was twinned dragon's breath broken? Because if not then, why not just leave it be like they did with all other metamagic?

Because people go gaga over white room scenarios.

[Zhorn]

Potentially 60d6 damage over the course of the spell, but it requires concentration, saves for half, and a fight has to last that long, which many fights at many tables don't do.
And even that is ignoring what those actions could have done if not spent on taking a breath attack on each round.

Twining Dragon's Breath was never really an over powered issue. It's a decent spell with so strong niche scenarios, but like most things there's some niche situation where one ability will outshine other options. The deep dive they did in trying to tighten the wording on Twinned Meta Magic is just needlessly over done, and while I will accept it as RAI, I will be ignoring it when I DM.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Good catch. Sad day for Fire Bolt. Does that make Chill Touch the go-to cantrip for Twinned?

I wonder if they meant that the spell will target an object more so than can target an object?

They don't typically do a good job at looking over the entire 5e phb when making rulings so I can see where they may have been coming from.

[RSP]

Arguing it based on fiddly wording is probably a losing propsition anyway with most DMs, but to play that game anyway, the distinction is that "an extra action that can only be an attack [or a few other things]" doesn't use the caster's stats in any way; the actual attack is coming from the target, not being dealt to the target, and at no point is the spell describing the mechanics of the attack being done to the attack's target.

Dragon's breath, on the other hand, describes in the spell description what damage is being done, and uses the caster's numbers. The AoE and damage are clearly the spell's effects, unlike the attack from the haste spell.

But again, I'm not making a strong argument, here; just illustrating where people might come from.

In practice, it'll be a DM's call.

If the Twinned Test involves using the casters stats, then it would be pertinent to the discussion. However, it doesn’t. DB clearly targets one character, just like Haste. The effects of the spell can have you damage other characters just like Haste.

If they want Haste and DB to have different results in whether or not they can be twinned, then they should make a rule that results in Haste and DB having different results in whether or not they can be twinned.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

If the Twinned Test involves using the casters stats, then it would be pertinent to the discussion. However, it doesn’t. DB clearly targets one character, just like Haste. The effects of the spell can have you damage other characters just like Haste.

If they want Haste and DB to have different results in whether or not they can be twinned, then they should make a rule that results in Haste and DB having different results in whether or not they can be twinned.

Or just say Dragon's Breath can't be twinned because it wasn't made with the sorcerer's twin spell in mind.

For as much as 5e likes to say "ask a DM" they really need to use their own advice and just ban stuff specifically if they think there's a problem (even if there wasn't one).

[Segev]

If DB is viewed as a problem when used with Twin and on familiars, the easiest thing in the world would be to errata it so it isn't targeting those who get to breathe the effect, but instead is just a spell that lets the caster breathe fire/lightning/whatever as an action for the duration. All the things people discuss as potentially abusive are very clearly consequences of the decision to make it target a beneficiary who gains a breath weapon, and I honestly can't believe that nobody on the dev team saw it coming nor understands the situation. I can only conclude they don't see a problem with these uses of the spell.

[Luccan]

If DB is viewed as a problem when used with Twin and on familiars, the easiest thing in the world would be to errata it so it isn't targeting those who get to breathe the effect, but instead is just a spell that lets the caster breathe fire/lightning/whatever as an action for the duration. All the things people discuss as potentially abusive are very clearly consequences of the decision to make it target a beneficiary who gains a breath weapon, and I honestly can't believe that nobody on the dev team saw it coming nor understands the situation. I can only conclude they don't see a problem with these uses of the spell.

I'm pretty sure the familiar use was explicitly approved by Crawford, for what that's worth. I've yet to hear of him publicly walking that back.

[Zalabim]

The things I don't get if, why did they need to change anything? Was twinned dragon's breath broken? Because if not then, why not just leave it be like they did with all other metamagic?

They didn't change anything. It was already not allowed when the spell was written. The change was made for eldritch blast. Since then, it's already been the rule so you could not twin ice knife nor dragon's breath. They really did make a dragon's breath spell for wizard's abilities in particular.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'm really surprised they didn't make meta magic work only on spells from the Sorcerer spell list.

Then put a phrase that bonus spells are sorcerer spell list spells.

Then just don't put things like DB on the sorcerer list anywhere.

[Luccan]

I'm really surprised they didn't make meta magic work only on spells from the Sorcerer spell list.

Then put a phrase that bonus spells are sorcerer spell list spells.

Then just don't put things like DB on the sorcerer list anywhere.

While the game might not be balanced for multiclassing, that doesn't mean there was no consideration of it. Sorcerer would be a worse class if its main ability didn't interact with anything outside the class itself. Nobody else really has that kind of restriction on their spell-boosting effects.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

While the game might not be balanced for multiclassing, that doesn't mean there was no consideration of it. Sorcerer would be a worse class if its main ability didn't interact with anything outside the class itself. Nobody else really has that kind of restriction on their spell-boosting effects.

First, I'm 87% sure they tacked on MC near the end of the dev time and just called it a day, like with feats, and didn't give much thought about balance. They may have thought about it easier in the dev time, but they sure didn't put much effort into these "optional" rules

Or much thought about Sorcerer subclasses (seriously, 2? That's all they could give us?).

But it would make sense, be thematic, and would have stopped all this tomfoolery.

[diplomancer]

First, I'm 87% sure they tacked on MC near the end of the dev time and just called it a day, like with feats, and didn't give much thought about balance. They may have thought about it easier in the dev time, but they sure didn't put much effort into these "optional" rules

Or much thought about Sorcerer subclasses (seriously, 2? That's all they could give us?).

But it would make sense, be thematic, and would have stopped all this tomfoolery.

Barbarians, Bards, Druids and Rangers also have only 2 subclasses. Fighters, Paladins, Monks, Rogues and Warlocks have 3.

It's clerics and wizards who are the outliers here, not sorcerers.

Also, the fact that multi-classing is not a trivial decision shows that SOME thought was given to it. Either that or they were just lucky.

[Boci]

They didn't change anything. It was already not allowed when the spell was written. The change was made for eldritch blast. Since then, it's already been the rule so you could not twin ice knife nor dragon's breath. They really did make a dragon's breath spell for wizard's abilities in particular.

That's highly questionable, as has demonstrated. Dragon's Breath specifies "You touch one willing creature". It appears to target one creature, which would make it eligible under the origional printing of twinned, before they added a bunch of other criteria for excluding a spell.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Barbarians, Bards, Druids and Rangers also have only 2 subclasses. Fighters, Paladins, Monks, Rogues and Warlocks have 3.

It's clerics and wizards who are the outliers here, not sorcerers.

Also, the fact that multi-classing is not a trivial decision shows that SOME thought was given to it. Either that or they were just lucky.

Sorcerers have 1 and then another 1 that is pretty much the worst subclass in the game. I'd take 4 Element Monk, Berserker Barbarian, and so many others before seriously picking up Chaos.

Having a subclass beholden to your DM so much is downright weird.

[Segev]

Sorcerers have 1 and then another 1 that is pretty much the worst subclass in the game. I'd take 4 Element Monk, Berserker Barbarian, and so many others before seriously picking up Chaos.

Having a subclass beholden to your DM so much is downright weird.

I think they really overestimate how much DMs grant permission. If you assume that you roll unless the DM says "not this time," the subclass likely works much better.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I think they really overestimate how much DMs grant permission. If you assume that you roll unless the DM says "not this time," the subclass likely works much better.

Try playing one in AL.

I played one under like three different DMs and holy crap was it all over the place.


I love the idea of the chaos sorcerer, played a Dwarven one that was ok, he was raised by elves and thought he was a wizard... But taking DM fiat that far is bonkers.

I've seen plenty of quick fixes to the Chaos sorcerer that does a much better job without being reliant on the DMs whims.

[Segev]

Try playing one in AL.

I played one under like three different DMs and holy crap was it all over the place.


I love the idea of the chaos sorcerer, played a Dwarven one that was ok, he was raised by elves and thought he was a wizard... But taking DM fiat that far is bonkers.

I've seen plenty of quick fixes to the Chaos sorcerer that does a much better job without being reliant on the DMs whims.

Oh, I agree that it's badly written. When I first read it and saw, "The DM might have you..." do your thing, I was :smalleek: over it. "So, basically, this never triggers?" was my reaction.

Thinking about it more, I realized that with the attitude the 5e rules are TRYING to encourage in DMs - one where things succeed if PCs try them unless there's a good reason for them NOT to - they expected the DM to basically make the rolls happen all the time, and just refrain from them when they would slow down the game (e.g. casting some spells during camp setup when the point is more to gloss over the time than to play through it, or when it would be really sucky to have something random ruin a dramatic scene, or when the sorcerer is counting on it for not-too-serious dramatic effect and it would be funny for a "this never happened to me before" situation to occur). The reason, I think, it's left up to the DM is not for balance, but to keep it from being obnoxious while not leaving it as something the player just chooses at his convenience. It is supposed to happen almost all the time.

The trouble with the way they wrote it is much like my trouble with Inspiration. As a DM, I just plain forget to give it out. :smallredface:

[Man_Over_Game]

Honestly, it never was really that complicated to me.

"Can the spell ever magically affect more than one creature?"

If Yes, you can't Twin it.

If No, you can.

Dragon's Breath has you enchant a creature, but also can deal magic damage to 1+ creatures. Not eligible.
Haste enchants one creature and magically impacts no others. Eligible.

The complicated ones are Life Transference and Warding Bond, which I'd say they weren't eligible based on the rules, but I'd ignore it anyway. Those spells are a lot more interesting in combat than Healing Word or Disintegrate.

[Boci]

Honestly, it never was really that complicated to me.

"Can the spell ever magically affect more than one creature?"

If Yes, you can't Twin it.

If No, you can.

Dragon's Breath has you enchant a creature, but also can deal magic damage to 1+ creatures.

But the origional twinned didn't say "affect", it said "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn’t have a range of self,", and that sound more like it would check the "enchant a creature" part of the spell, rather than a later ability to affect multiple ones.

If the origional twinned used "affect" then sure, I'd agree with the above interpretation.

[Man_Over_Game]

But the origional twinned didn't say "affect", it said "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn’t have a range of self,", and that sound more like it would check the "enchant a creature" part of the spell, rather than a later ability to affect multiple ones.

If the origional twinned used "affect" then sure, I'd agree with the above interpretation.

Sure, I'm just basing that off of the context Crawford provided on the topic many years ago.

[Luccan]

What I don't understand is that it seems the only thing out of line with the interpretation the devs wanted that was at least commonly seen was Ice Knife and Dragon's Breath. Don't get me wrong, those were nice targets for Twinning but I haven't seen or heard about it dominating tables or Sorcerer spell lists. Seems simpler to let it slide than potentially trip up and mess with things like the Twinability of Firebolt

[Boci]

What I don't understand is that it seems the only thing out of line with the interpretation the devs wanted that was at least commonly seen was Ice Knife and Dragon's Breath. Don't get me wrong, those were nice targets for Twinning but I haven't seen or heard about it dominating tables or Sorcerer spell lists. Seems simpler to let it slide than potentially trip up and mess with things like the Twinability of Firebolt

Yeah, I wouldn't say one of the designer got salty about an interaction they didn't think of and for some reason really, really didn't like, since I have absolutly no proof and should probably give them the benefit of the doubt, but on the otherhand, I can't think of a good reason to revise twinn spell so much.

[MaxWilson]

Oh, I agree that it's badly written. When I first read it and saw, "The DM might have you..." do your thing, I was :smalleek: over it. "So, basically, this never triggers?" was my reaction.

If I were playing a Wild Sorcerer I'd just ask the DM every time I wanted one. "I cast Shield: is there a Wild Surge?" I'd have the wild surge dice rolling even as I asked the question, and my PHB open to the wild surge table. Make it as easy as possible for the DM to say yes.

"I Shield. Is there a wild surge? (Roll.)"
"Yes."
"Oh. I am now a potted plant for the next minute."

[Segev]

If I were playing a Wild Sorcerer I'd just ask the DM every time I wanted one. "I cast Shield: is there a Wild Surge?" I'd have the wild surge dice rolling even as I asked the question, and my PHB open to the wild surge table. Make it as easy as possible for the DM to say yes.

"I Shield. Is there a wild surge? (Roll.)"
"Yes."
"Oh. I am now a potted plant for the next minute."

Sure, that's a good way to handle it, assuming the DM doesn't think that there's some hidden criterion he should be reserving the rolls for.

[Ortho]

Sure, that's a good way to handle it, assuming the DM doesn't think that there's some hidden criterion he should be reserving the rolls for.

Doubtful. DMs handle Wild Magic Surge in one of two ways: they either rule that it triggers every time you cast a spell, or they completely forget about it and it never happens. I've never seen an in-between.
Wild Magic Surge and Tides of Chaos are just poorly designed; it is not the DM's responsibility to handle player resources.

[Zalabim]

Yeah, I wouldn't say one of the designer got salty about an interaction they didn't think of and for some reason really, really didn't like, since I have absolutly no proof and should probably give them the benefit of the doubt, but on the otherhand, I can't think of a good reason to revise twinn spell so much.
They keep adding to the clarifications because of people who diligently avoid errata for years, and folks who shamelessly try to argue that not targeting a creature makes a spell more eligible for twin spell, like friend of a Friend in this story.

Hmm- a shame the Twinned Spell errata wasn't also given something to shut down the, "I target a point in space, not a creature" loophole that was used on one of my DMs to allow Twinned Fireball.
The worst part is I can just feel that they're arguing for double fireball damage and ignoring the overlapping spell effects rule, the precedence set by meteor swarm, and simple human decency that all suggest just expanding the effective area.

[MaxWilson]

Sure, that's a good way to handle it, assuming the DM doesn't think that there's some hidden criterion he should be reserving the rolls for.

Yeah, even if there's some hidden criterion the worst that can happen is they'll just say "no" every time. I doubt that would happen.

[Boci]

They keep adding to the clarifications because of people who diligently avoid errata for years, and folks who shamelessly try to argue that not targeting a creature makes a spell more eligible for twin spell, like friend of a Friend in this story.

The worst part is I can just feel that they're arguing for double fireball damage and ignoring the overlapping spell effects rule, the precedence set by meteor swarm, and simple human decency that all suggest just expanding the effective area.

You could never twin fireball. If people ignored that before, how will new eratta help? They'll just ignore that too. And even if this does work, why also nerf it with limitation that were not there previously? Sure, clarify that no area of effect spell can never be twinned, but why the new list of things that make a spell inelegible?

[MoiMagnus]

And even if this does work, why also nerf it with limitation that were not there previously? Sure, clarify that no area of effect spell can never be twinned, but why the new list of things that make a spell inelegible?

"If the two of you are curious about our design intent, here is the list of things that disqualify a spell for us:"

I think this sentence is very important to answer "why?"
While as far as public information goes, this is a "new" list, design-wise, this is an "old" list, or at least an old intention that leads to the wording the the PHB. Intention of restriction that possibly predate the full list of spells of 5e.
This list answer "when we wrote the effect, here is what we had in mind" not "what we think would be the best for the game". (And their answer to the second one is "we think 'ask your DM' would be the best for the game").

[You could ask "if they had this list or something similar from the beginning, why isn't it is the PHB?" the answer is that the PHB is full of simplifications and approximations from what the designer had in mind because they chose to favour ambiguities over technicalities]

For me, it reads as a peace of history of the design of the game, not as a rule advice.
(And I like history of designs, and would love to know more of it, but probably not inserted at the middle of a Sage Advice)

[bendking]

Did they seriously nerf the Four Element Monk?
What the hell, WotC?

[Garfunion]

Did they seriously nerf the Four Element Monk?
What the hell, WotC?

What do you mean?
If it’s the water whip, that change has been there for years. Probably shortly after 5e release.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

What do you mean?
If it’s the water whip, that change has been there for years. Probably shortly after 5e release.

It was changed rather fast for something that isn't all that broken.

The biggest disappointment of 4E Monk is that they didn't tie unique spell like abilities to using all the unique features of the monk.

Step of the Wind, Patient Defense, Flurry of Blows, Slow Fall, Deflect Missiles, and Stunning Strike should all have spell options around them.

Something like... "When you use Step of the Wind, you may cast Shatter as a first level spell. The spell's target spot is where you are located when you take the Bonus Action to activate Step of the Wind. You are immune to the effects of this spell.

[Segev]

It was changed rather fast for something that isn't all that broken.

The biggest disappointment of 4E Monk is that they didn't tie unique spell like abilities to using all the unique features of the monk.

Step of the Wind, Patient Defense, Flurry of Blows, Slow Fall, Deflect Missiles, and Stunning Strike should all have spell options around them.

Something like... "When you use Step of the Wind, you may cast Shatter as a first level spell. The spell's target spot is where you are located when you take the Bonus Action to activate Step of the Wind. You are immune to the effects of this spell.

That would be pretty cool. The beauty of the Four Elements Monk's design is that you could actually add these effects without changing the subclass. It's a very options-open subclass (unlike most others). Like the Battlemaster, you can just keep adding new techniques as available ones.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

That would be pretty cool. The beauty of the Four Elements Monk's design is that you could actually add these effects without changing the subclass. It's a very options-open subclass (unlike most others). Like the Battlemaster, you can just keep adding new techniques as available ones.

You can add things, but the base Fighter is not really set up for it the way the Monk is.

The monk has the core class features that a subclass adds to. The Battlemaster is the part of the fighter that has the feature that will be added to.

Essentially, ki versus battle master dice.

The fighter is kind of a mess. Action Surge is given way too early, it has too many extra attacks later in the game, it gets some really poor defensive options outside of good AC... Giving it a really good subclass would unbalance this class far too much. Eldritch Knight is the best subclass the fighter has in the PHB because it supplements the core class and doesn't just make it better in straight up combat (though, it does that too).

Because the Monk isn't super strong in punching a single creature in the face, it CAN get cool stuff from their subclasses (even if some of them are meh).

[Segev]

You can add things, but the base Fighter is not really set up for it the way the Monk is.

The monk has the core class features that a subclass adds to. The Battlemaster is the part of the fighter that has the feature that will be added to.

Essentially, ki versus battle master dice.

The fighter is kind of a mess. Action Surge is given way too early, it has too many extra attacks later in the game, it gets some really poor defensive options outside of good AC... Giving it a really good subclass would unbalance this class far too much. Eldritch Knight is the best subclass the fighter has in the PHB because it supplements the core class and doesn't just make it better in straight up combat (though, it does that too).

Because the Monk isn't super strong in punching a single creature in the face, it CAN get cool stuff from their subclasses (even if some of them are meh).

I think I follow only because of your final sentence, here. Can you please elaborate a bit on how what you're saying leads up to that?



What I was referring to was adding things to Way of Four Elements and to Battle Master as being things you can expand on organically. You can add new Four Elements techniques just by adding them as options. You can add new Battle Master maneuvers just by adding them as options. It's like spells for the EK and any other spellcasting class: just by adding more options, you add to all those classes.

Just by adding new elemental technique options, you've added to the Four Elements monk without having to invent a new subclass.

So if you want to do something like make four elements techniques that coordinate well with monkly base abilities, you can do so without having to start over and make a new subclass. Just build on the existing one.

[animewatcha]

Slowly going through it. You can apparently use cutting words to cut down the damage of Magic Missile. I would love to see Matt Mercer trying to narrate how Scanlan manage to cut magic missile damage down to 0 with cutting words.

[MaxWilson]

Slowly going through it. You can apparently use cutting words to cut down the damage of Magic Missile. I would love to see Matt Mercer trying to narrate how Scanlan manage to cut magic missile damage down to 0 with cutting words.

Cutting Words also goes well with Armor of Agathys, sometimes.