5E Can you twin booming blade

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
As the title says.

I've read this build where someone twins booming blade - it's an... excessive... haste quicken twin combo.

Oh and they want to booming blade and smite at the same time, of course :)
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
By RAW, I don’t see any reason this wouldn’t work. The only weird interaction is that you’re supposed to make the weapon attack “as part of the action used to cast the spell,” and Twinned spell doesn’t let you actually cast it again, it only lets you target a second creature in range. So, if you really wanted to rules lawyer it, you could say that you can target two creatures with the effect, “On a hit [with the weapon used as the spellcasting focus], the target suffers the attack's normal effects, and it becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn. [etc.]” but you only get to make one attack as part of the action, so there’s no way to hit both of the affected targets. However, I would say that such a ruling is against the spirit of 5e’s tendency towards natural language. It’s the kind of ruling I would expect to see on Jeremy Crawford’s Twitter, rather than the kind of ruling I think is an intuitive interpretation of the text.
 
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.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
I found the flaw in my friend's proposed combo - he wanted to essentially booming blade 5 times in a turn, but he can't - the extra action granted by haste does not allow spellcasting.
Yeah, I was just going to say that. They could action surge and do it twice, but not haste.
 

Esker

Hero
Yeah, I was just going to say that. They could action surge and do it twice, but not haste.
I think as a sorcerer/fighter with Haste the maximum booming blade abuse you could do would be:
(1) Quickened BB using Bonus Action (2 SP)
(2) Twinned BB using main action (1 SP)
(3) Twinned BB using action surge action (1 SP)
(4) Regular attack (w/o BB) using Haste action

So you are getting 5x booming blade (split between two or more targets) even without Haste if you spend 4 SP. Then Haste can give you one more regular weapon attack.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
I think as a sorcerer/fighter with Haste the maximum booming blade abuse you could do would be:
(1) Quickened BB using Bonus Action (2 SP)
(2) Twinned BB using main action (1 SP)
(3) Twinned BB using action surge action (1 SP)
(4) Regular attack (w/o BB) using Haste action

So you are getting 5x booming blade (split between two or more targets) even without Haste if you spend 4 SP. Then Haste can give you one more regular weapon attack.
Twin spell's spell must target a creature other than self, it can't target a weapon. Whether or not the booming blade can be quickened is also debatable, you still need to make an attack as part of the action.

I could see the ruling on the latter may vary from DM to DM, but the former is pretty clear to me.
 

Esker

Hero
Twin spell's spell must target a creature other than self, it can't target a weapon. Whether or not the booming blade can be quickened is also debatable, you still need to make an attack as part of the action.

I could see the ruling on the latter may vary from DM to DM, but the former is pretty clear to me.
Well, the text of the spell does repeatedly refer to "the target", so it does seem to target one creature (and to be incapable of targeting more than one creature, unlike green flame blade). It has a range of 5', not a range of self, and no AoE component, so... RAW, I don't see why you couldn't twin it? I also don't see why you couldn't quicken it and cast it again with your action, same as any other cantrip. What does the fact that it involves a weapon attack have to do with anything?
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Well, the text of the spell does repeatedly refer to "the target", so it does seem to target one creature (and to be incapable of targeting more than one creature, unlike green flame blade). It has a range of 5', not a range of self, and no AoE component, so... RAW, I don't see why you couldn't twin it? I also don't see why you couldn't quicken it and cast it again with your action, same as any other cantrip. What does the fact that it involves a weapon attack have to do with anything?
As I mentioned earlier, Booming Blade does say that you make an attack with the weapon used as the material component as part of the action used to cast it. One could argue that Twinning it doesn’t actually constitute another use of the Cast a Spell action, and therefore doesn’t provide you another opportunity to make an attack as part of that action, it only lets you designate a second target to be affected by the “if you hit it with the attack...” portion of the spell. I think such a ruling would be founded on an overly-technical reading of a spell that is written in natural language, but it’s the kind of ruling I would expect Crawford to give on Twitter.

As for Quickened Spell, yeah, I don’t see any reason that wouldn’t work with BB.
 
Booming Blade does not target the weapon. The weapon is a material component of the spell. You target a creature with the spell and you make a weapon attack as part of the casting action.

"On a hit the target suffers the attack's normal effects, and it becomes sheathed in booming energy"
-SCAG

Booming Blade can be Twinned, Quickened, Empowered, Subtle or Distant. It can't be careful, extended or heightened.
 

gyor

Legend
One weird twist is a Cavalier with War Mage and Booming Blade can use Booming Blade in it's limitless AoOs.
 

TheKing

Villager
There can be argued by that its possible but also that it is not:

Possible:
Does the spell effect only one? Yes it does which mean that no doub't the twinned spell works and it should work.
Is the melee attack a magic attack, well its used in the cantrip action so it cant be regular attack. Which indicate it should be possible.

now here is why it can be argued as semi not possible:

Not possible:

The spell itself is possible we need to determine the mechanism:
Boomingblade as part of the action make a melee attack against one creature, else the spell fails.
Twinned spell can be cast if the spell you use only target one creature
Now boomingblade directly state that as a part of the action make a melee attack. Well, in order to by the text to cast the twinned version you no longer need to make an additional melee attack in order to succeed casting the spell. Since the melee attack states it directly requires an action, you cant do that as two actions even though you twin it. The spell will be twinned but it will be the effect of the boomingblade so to speak the magic.

Now people would argue that the attack itself is magic and an additional magical sword appears or something like that, but since boomingblade directly states that the melee attack that is required is part of an action you need two actions in order to do two melee attack on two creatures...but the twin effect still apply meaning that after you hit one time with the melee attack the magic itselfis twinned and you both the target you hit and another target within range will be sheathed in booming energy.

Now to investigate even further we need to know about magic...
The sage advice compendium made a little relation to when is it magic or not...so if it should be possible to twin cast the melee attack itself then a new problem comes into light, cause that would mean according to the checklist that the melee attack thereby would be magic. And suddently we have a even stronger boomingblade than before if that is the case. Cause if you let the twin work it would be a spell and thereby per default magic attack, which it says in its text it is not by the wordings: "target suffers the attack's normal effects " which indicate that the melee part is not magical. Therefore conclusion is that if you twin cast boomingblade you do:
One melee attack
Two booming sheath attacks and effect.

Now noone can actually say one is more correct than the other since the text can be argued and read on two different terms where noone can actually say one is more right than the other one...

We must therefore wait till final confirmation from Jeremy E Crawford. All Jeremy has confirmed as of now is that it is possible to twin cast the spell...question that remains is if its possible to do two melee attacks or not...
 

Coroc

Hero
...
but since boomingblade directly states that the melee attack that is required is part of an action you need two actions in order to do two melee attack on two creatures

...
This ^^

So as I see it it can be twinned, has twice the magic effect does not require a second attack,
and since the second attack would be another full action this a second attack would also not be possible.
 

Todd Roybark

Adventurer
It’s the kind of ruling I would expect to see on Jeremy Crawford’s Twitter, rather than the kind of ruling I think is an intuitive interpretation of the text.
Agreed!!!......

The two Sword Coast cantrips in question are a bit odd. One needs the Spell Sniper feat or metamagic to use a reach weapon to attack more than the 5’ range of the cantrip.

Counterspell negates it , as does a Raksashas Limited Spell Immunity.

A cleric of the arcane could select the Cantrips via class feature and add Wis mod at 8th level
and NO, one does not need two attack actions or extra attack to twin the cantrip.

One uses the “Cast a spell Action” to use the Cantrip, not the “Attack Action”, the weapon attack portion of the cantrip is essentially a complex somatic component.
 

TheKing

Villager
One uses the “Cast a spell Action” to use the Cantrip, not the “Attack Action”, the weapon attack portion of the cantrip is essentially a complex somatic component.
I agree That it is cantrip/spell action and npt attack action a but the text says directly “as part of the action”... you dont use an additional action to twincast which mean that directly if you take into consideration what the working say you only gonna do one melee hit- the twin spell dont make additional action or attack since the spell already is triggered and working.

My point is you Can read it both ways and Jeremy need to give the solution...

But buttomline break the text and in order for that magic to do two melee hits it require two actions.
 

Harzel

Adventurer
As I mentioned earlier, Booming Blade does say that you make an attack with the weapon used as the material component as part of the action used to cast it. One could argue that Twinning it doesn’t actually constitute another use of the Cast a Spell action, and therefore doesn’t provide you another opportunity to make an attack as part of that action, it only lets you designate a second target to be affected by the “if you hit it with the attack...” portion of the spell. I think such a ruling would be founded on an overly-technical reading of a spell that is written in natural language, but it’s the kind of ruling I would expect Crawford to give on Twitter.

As for Quickened Spell, yeah, I don’t see any reason that wouldn’t work with BB.
I don't think it would be an overly technical reading, it would just be a failure to apply Twinning consistently. All single-target spells use the "a creature" or "one creature" language. To me it seems the intent of Twinned Spell is accurately reflected by replacing those phrases by "two creatures" (and making additional adjustments as needed, such as replacing subsequent references to "the target" by "each target"). So Twinned Booming Blade is just

As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make melee attacks with a weapon against two creatures within the spell’s range, otherwise the spell fails. On a hit, each target suffers the attack’s normal effects, and it becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn.
The arguments about making multiple melee attacks with one action are spurious* for two reasons. First, Booming Blade is already exceptional: normally you can't make a melee attack as part of the Cast a Spell action. It's not problematic that Twinning the spell creates a slightly different exception. Second, there is no blanket prohibition on making multiple melee attacks as part of a single action, and, in fact, there are several precedents for it (e.g., Extra Attack and monsters' Multiattack routines).

And, BTW, JC has responded to this question (although whether his response constitutes an answer is, as is often the case, debatable).


* That's not meant to be rude. I understand that the effect of Twinning Booming Blade feels unusual. But the arguments against it really don't stand up to scrutiny.
 

TheKing

Villager
* That's not meant to be rude. I understand that the effect of Twinning Booming Blade feels unusual. But the arguments against it really don't stand up to scrutiny.
I dont Think anyone would say you cant twin spell boomingblade - the thing people seems to have different opinions about is the melee attack.

It States in boomingblade that a melee attack is needed for the spell, not two or three of Four etc. So regardless how many times and actions you actually have only that one melee attack is required directly quoted from the boomingblade effect.

Now if it is to be possible to twincast the melee attack also - you know it do apply to the rules of being a magic attack. Which would be a direct contradiction to the boomingblade texture of the melee attack effect.

Now i dont say one is more right than the other, but if you analyze and break up the text itself its without a shred of doubt dont make two melee attacks while using Twinned spell... mainly also because boomingblade stArea that “part of the action”, twinning it doesnt male two parts of an action, twinning is still same action therefore it Will be impossible to make two melee attacks since that would be part of two actions and not one.

But i do aknowledge that it could be intepreted and understood in a different matter of meaning, but the wordings itself are clear.
 

Salthorae

Imperial Mountain Dew Taster
People are over thinking this.

Booming Blade is a single target, non-self spell. Therefore you can Twin it.

Twinned Spell said:
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).
What does the Booming Blade spell say?

You target a creature with a melee attack because you "must make a melee attack". If it hits, it deals weapon damage + additional thundering effects.

It doesn't say you take the Attack Action. It says as part of the spell that you make a melee attack.

Therefore if you twin it, you get to make two attacks, one for each of the twinned portions. They both have to hit to have the thundering rider. Because metamagic bends the action economy for twin spell and quicken spell. That's what it does. Getting to make a second attack with that shouldn't be an issue here.

Expending a sorcery point is already a big cost to do something like this, don't try to nerf it by complicated and convoluted examinations of language.
 

TheKing

Villager
People are over thinking this.

Booming Blade is a single target, non-self spell. Therefore you can Twin it.



What does the Booming Blade spell say?

You target a creature with a melee attack because you "must make a melee attack". If it hits, it deals weapon damage + additional thundering effects.

It doesn't say you take the Attack Action. It says as part of the spell that you make a melee attack.
No boomingblade blade say “As part of the action used to cast this spell...” so its part of the combined action, its not an individual spell or anything that Can be twinned - when twin spelling you dont get to use an additional action therefore its impossible to argue directly on the text that its possible to twin the melee attack Part since it requires to be part of an action and twinning that would directly quoted from the text require two actions... but as Said it Can be read on both sides and noone Can determine with 100% one is more right than the other - we mist wait for Jeremy to actually make response of it...
 

Advertisement

Top