D&D 5E Can you twin booming blade

[lumenbeing]

Most spells have requirements you have to perform to cast the spell. Twinning lets you double the ratio of effect to effort. Maybe in this case it does that by halving the effort required to make the attack. "Magic" is as good a justification as anything else when you're talking about what fluff to layer over a rule in a game that involves casting magic spells.

No it’s not. There are hundreds of pages of core books and supplements devoted to explaining how magic works in D&D. A single word is not good enough a justification for the argument in favor of this exploit. It’s lazy. Most spells, including Booming Blade, include fluff text in the spell description. Spells do what they say they do. You can pontificate about what it “maybe does” all you want but what it actually does, according to the text is REQUIRE a melee weapon attack with a “weapon” against a creature. It is that same weapon attack that provided the “normal effects” on a hit. What your imagining is that the spell, when twinned, lets a caster make two attacks with the same weapon simultaneously or “magically“ creates a second weapon on a ghost arm out of thin air. But the spell does not say any of that and the description of twinned spell doesn’t say any of that either. You are making naughty word up to justify giving a non-multiclassed sorcerer two melee attacks with control in one round.

Im all for twinning the actual spell and it’s effects IF the physical requirement of making a melee attack, implicit in the original spell can be met when doubled. If a player could say to me, “well if I had instead taken the attack action, I could have used a bonus action with my offhand weapon in the same 6 second round, Im capable of making 2 mwa” or “since I’m multi classed as a fighter, I have to ability to attack 2 separate targets in the span of one attack action” I’d say sure, you clearly have the chops to do it, so make 2 separate attack rolls vs the target and the effects apply only to the ones you actually hit. That passes the sniff test. But if a plain old sorc tries to strike at two monsters, one on each side of him, with the same dagger, my ruling is going to be that is physically impossible for him to do, therefore he can’t fulfill the requirements of the casting of the twinned spell.

Explain to me why being able to twin booming blade is an "exploit"?

Any time you bend and twist the RAW to squeeze any amount of extra something out of a given spell or feature, it’s an exploit regardless of how much extra you get. Usually what you get is a slippery can of worms poured on a slope.
But in this specific case, Booming Blade is a control spell. It can be easily stacked with other control spells that force monsters into a catch22. Just place a flaming sphere between to monsters under the effect of booming blade, now they take additional damage whether they move or not. If the caster is a multi class rogue/sorc, then it gets worse because they are using their dex and also claiming sneak attack damage if an ally is nearby. Cunning action to dip out or mobile feat.
And that is a cool and smart strategy for a party to employ, but regardless of how cool, smart, or efficient it is, it can only be done if it can be done. Some characters will be able to pull it off and some won’t. It’s the DM‘s job to use his brain to decide on a case by case basis because the rules as written are seriously lacking.
Those DMs without functioning brains can always go ask JC on Twitter what his brain would do.

 

[NotAYakk]

include fluff text in the spell description.

there is no fluff in 5e spell descriptions.

 

[lumenbeing]

there is no fluff in 5e spell descriptions.

“Booming energy” is fluff.

 

[Salthorae]

Those DMs without functioning brains can always go ask JC on Twitter what his brain would do.

Whelp, there's a good wholesale condemnation of DM's apparently not as smart as you!

 

[lumenbeing]

Whelp, there's a good wholesale condemnation of DM's apparently not as smart as you!

You don’t have to be as smart as me to think for yourself.

 

[NotAYakk]

“Booming energy” is fluff.

Great example of non-fluff. Booming energy has a meaning. It is "energy" that is "booming". When something is "booming" it is making a "loud, deep resonant sound". So a rogue using Booming Blade to sneak attack wraps the target in energy that makes a loud, deep resonant sound even if it deals 0 thunder damage.

If the rogue misses, no such "booming energy" is created, so there is no evidence it makes a sound from the spell description.

Exactly how loud that sound is is not clear; other spells mention that they can be heard within some fixed radius. But we know, because nothing in a spell description is fluff, that energy is "booming".

4e D&D explicitly had a fluff/crunch split to spells and other powers. Many people read that into 3e as well. 5e explicitly has no such split.

 

[Esker]

Great example of non-fluff. Booming energy has a meaning. It is "energy" that is "booming". When something is "booming" it is making a "loud, deep resonant sound". So a rogue using Booming Blade to sneak attack wraps the target in energy that makes a loud, deep resonant sound even if it deals 0 thunder damage.

If the rogue misses, no such "booming energy" is created, so there is no evidence it makes a sound from the spell description.

How loud that sound is is not clear. But we know that energy is "booming".

Ehh, I think you might be going too far with this part. Some spells have fluff in the description. Booming Blade doesn't say it makes a sound (unlike, say, Thunderwave or Shatter), so I read the "booming energy" bit as fluff.

But I also don't think anything in this discussion actually rides on whether some parts of spell text are fluff or not.

 

[Esker]

No it’s not. There are hundreds of pages of core books and supplements devoted to explaining how magic works in D&D.

There are the rules about how magic works, and there's fluff about how some writers envision magic working in particular settings. But the fluff doesn't actually impact the rules, nor do the rules impact the fluff. A DM (or a player, with the DM's approval) can refluff anything they want, without changing a thing about the game mechanics.

what it actually does, according to the text is REQUIRE a melee weapon attack with a “weapon” against a creature. It is that same weapon attack that provided the “normal effects” on a hit. What your imagining is that the spell, when twinned, lets a caster make two attacks with the same weapon simultaneously...

It doesn't have to be simultaneous; you just have to declare your targets when you cast. What I'm saying is that since the ability to make a melee attack as part of casting a spell is specifically granted by the spell (otherwise you can't do both with the same action), there's no problem saying that twinning the spell grants the ability to make two separate melee attacks. By making a melee attack as part of the spell in the first place we're already outside what the rules say about how many attacks a sorcerer can make, since we're not using the attack action. And in any case, specific overrides general.

But the spell does not say any of that and the description of twinned spell doesn’t say any of that either. You are making naughty word up to justify giving a non-multiclassed sorcerer two melee attacks with control in one round.

I mean... Twinned Shocking Grasp is two melee attacks with control... This one just does more damage but with more situational control.

Im all for twinning the actual spell and it’s effects IF the physical requirement of making a melee attack, implicit in the original spell can be met when doubled. If a player could say to me, “well if I had instead taken the attack action, I could have used a bonus action with my offhand weapon in the same 6 second round, Im capable of making 2 mwa” or “since I’m multi classed as a fighter, I have to ability to attack 2 separate targets in the span of one attack action” I’d say sure, you clearly have the chops to do it, so make 2 separate attack rolls vs the target and the effects apply only to the ones you actually hit. That passes the sniff test.

And I have no problem with you ruling that way in your game. Just don't pretend that that interpretation is implied by the rules and the spell text.

But if a plain old sorc tries to strike at two monsters, one on each side of him, with the same dagger, my ruling is going to be that is physically impossible for him to do, therefore he can’t fulfill the requirements of the casting of the twinned spell.

Do you also rule that twinning Toll the Dead is impossible because the spell text says that you have to point at one creature in range? Or maybe it's possible but they have to be in a direct line from you? Or would you just assume that the sorcerer can point at one and then the other?

But in this specific case, Booming Blade is a control spell. It can be easily stacked with other control spells that force monsters into a catch22. Just place a flaming sphere between to monsters under the effect of booming blade, now they take additional damage whether they move or not.

Sure, I mean, nobody is arguing that you couldn't do this to one creature, so why is it suddenly a problem if you can do it to two (at the cost of a 2nd level spell slot and 3 SP, to quicken the sphere and then twin BB) that happen to be positioned correctly? Is the damage you can get by doing that (roughly 2d8+2d6+3 per creature, or 19, if you hit and they fail their save) overpowered for the cost? If you twin and empower a 2nd level inflict wounds, that costs you the same spell slot and SP, and you get 4d10, or 22 damage each, and you can do that while concentrating on something else and still have your bonus action free.

If the caster is a multi class rogue/sorc, then it gets worse because they are using their dex and also claiming sneak attack damage if an ally is nearby.

Sneak attack still only applies once though, even if you attack two creatures. So that's mostly irrelevant since it's not part of what the twinning is buying us (except that we have two chances to trigger it).

Cunning action to dip out or mobile feat.

Yes, booming blade and cunning action disengage is a good combo. And if you have sorcerer levels you can do that two two targets each time you spend a sorcery point to twin booming blade. If you're multiclassed, though, you either have fewer SP or a weaker sneak attack than a single classed character would have. Without doing detailed math, I'm skeptical that you really come out that far ahead over the course of a day compared to other options.

 

[cbwjm]

People are still arguing about this? It meets all the requirements for twinning a spell. You cast the spell, attack a single target with a melee attack as part of the spell. If twinned you need to make a second melee attack. Seems some people do some extreme mental gymnastics to provide a reason why it shouldn't be twinned.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh no, not this thread again!