D&D 5E Can you twin booming blade

[Weiley31]

RAW yes, you can twin Booming Blade, allowing you to weapon attack two targets, in addition to the effect of the spell itself.

It could be fluffed as a ghostly duplicate of your weapon arm attacking the second target.

Or After images.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

If you're going to re-write the spell in that way I'd model it on shield. So:

Casting time: 1 reaction*
...
* - which you take when you hit with a melee weapon attack

That simplifies it so it's not something fully custom.

That is pretty elegant. I've been unhappy with the way those SCAG cantrips mix up casting and hitting (especially when you combine them woith reach, multiattack, antimagic and counterspell) and I think this makes me happy. Happier, anyway.

 

[Harzel]

Oh no, not this thread again!

It's ok, it's just a bad dream. Click your heels together three times and it will go away.

 

[Harzel]

This discussion, while occasionally invoking the name of “natural language”, wholly ignores common sense.

Invoking "common sense" when discussing how magic works seems of dubious validity.

The designers cocked up the wording. And I bet they never gave 2 seconds thought to how Twinned Spell would word with it.

I'm certainly with you there.

The requirement that the caster “must make” a weapon attack does not grant a weapon attack.

Actually, that's exactly what it does. The caster has taken the Cast a Spell action, so normally they would not be able to make a melee attack at all; the spell provides an exception. There's no particular reason to say that Twinning doesn't extend that exception.

 

[Charlaquin]

Actually, that's exactly what it does. The caster has taken the Cast a Spell action, so normally they would not be able to make a melee attack at all; the spell provides an exception. There's no particular reason to say that Twinning doesn't extend that exception.

This is the most convincing argument in favor of twinning it I’ve seen. I still don’t think it works by RAW, but considering it explicitly works by RAI and is so clearly a case of poor wording, I really don’t care any more, and this here is a pretty good case for it still being possible under a certain interpretation of RAW.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

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.

It always baffles me when people don't like a rule, and instead of changing it with a house rule, they torture the rules text with nonsensical interpretations that make it say the opposite of what a plain reading does, and then try to convince the world that this is the obvious and correct way to interpret the rules text.

 

[jmartkdr2]

@TheKing is correct. Booming Blade does only target one creature, and its range is not self, so it is absolutely a valid target for Twinned Spell, but making an attack roll is not a part of the effect of the spell, it is a requirement of the action used to cast the spell. The proper order of operations would be:
1. You take the Cast a Spell action. As part of this action, you must be holding a weapon, a spellcasting focus, or a component pouch, you must perform the necessary verbal components, and you must make a melee weapon attack against a creature within the spell’s range (5 feet). Otherwise, the spell fails.
2. You spend 1 sorcery point to apply the effects of Twinned Spell to the spell.
3. You apply the effects of the spell to two targets.

The effects of Booming Blade are “On a hit, the target suffers the attack's normal effects, and it becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn. If the target willingly moves be- fore then, it immediately takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends,” so you can apply that effect to two creatures, but have no way of hitting both of those targets with an attack, since you only make one as part of the Cast a Spell action.

Now, the above is consistent with a very technical reading of the text, but I do not believe it is consistent with the intended function of the spell. Booming Blade is a pretty kludgily-written spell, but it’s pretty obvious how it’s supposed to work. I would certainly allow a player at my table to attack two targets with Twinned Booming Blade, even though that’s not technically what the text instructs you to do in that scenario.

So you make one attack roll against one of the targets, and if you beat the target's AC, both take weapon damage and are sheathed in booming energy.

I mean, if anyone feels the need to get that technical with the reading.

 

[Charlaquin]

It always baffles me when people don't like a rule, and instead of changing it with a house rule, they torture the rules text with nonsensical interpretations that make it say the opposite of what a plain reading does, and then try to convince the world that this is the obvious and correct way to interpret the rules text.

No one is doing this. From the beginning of the thread, the overwhelming sentiment has been that it seems like the intent is for it to be twinnable. Some people, like myself, have agreed with that sentiment even though we don’t think that’s what a strict technical reading of the rules actually says, and said that we would probably allow it to be twinned anyway because, again, that’s clearly the intent. That’s it. The two sides of this argument are “Yes” and “I don’t think the wording works out that way, but yes anyway.”

 

[NotAYakk]

There is also "no, anyone doing this is a munckin" in more than one post.

 

[Esker]

No one is doing this. From the beginning of the thread, the overwhelming sentiment has been that it seems like the intent is for it to be twinnable. Some people, like myself, have agreed with that sentiment even though we don’t think that’s what a strict technical reading of the rules actually says, and said that we would probably allow it to be twinned anyway because, again, that’s clearly the intent. That’s it. The two sides of this argument are “Yes” and “I don’t think the wording works out that way, but yes anyway.”

lumenbeing was doing it, which is why the thread became active again.