D&D 5E Can you twin booming blade

[Todd Roybark]

As an aside, does Jeremy Crawford often sound like an Eggplant Emoji on his feed?
Perhaps the thread linked in this discussion was a bad day for him?

 

[Charlaquin]

@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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

since you only make one as part of the Cast a Spell action.

This is a rule made up out of thin air. We have established that Booming Blade uses the "cast spell" action, not the "attack" action. If you twin an attack roll spell you make two attack rolls as part of the same "cast spell" action. If you twin Shocking Grasp you grasp two targets. There is no limitation on the number of attack rolls you can make as part of "cast spell" action - see Eldritch Blast. There is no rule that differentiates the melee weapon attack made as part of the Booming Blade spell from the melee spell attack made for Shocking Grasp.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is a rule made up out of thin air.

It’s not a rule at all, it’s what the text of the spell instructs you to do.

We have established that Booming Blade uses the "cast spell" action, not the "attack" action. If you twin an attack roll spell you make two attack rolls as part of the same "cast spell" action.

There is no such thing as an “attack roll spell” and the only spells that instruct you to make an attack as part of the action used to cast the spell are Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade.

If you twin Shocking Grasp you grasp two targets.

Yes, because making a melee spell attack is part of the effect of Shocking Grasp.

There is no limitation on the number of attack rolls you can make as part of "cast spell" action

This is true, but the only spells that require you to make an attack as part of the action used to cast them are Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade, and both of them instruct you to make one attack.

- see Eldritch Blast.

The ranged spell attacks made by Eldritch Blast are part of the effect of Eldritch Blast, not part of the action used to cast it.

There is no rule that differentiates the melee weapon attack made as part of the Booming Blade spell from the melee spell attack made for Shocking Grasp.

A rule? No. But the instructions of the spells are different. Booming Blade instructs you to make an attack with a melee weapon as part of the action used to cast the spell. Shocking Grasp has no such qualifier, it simply instructs you to make a melee spell attack.

And, again, I agree with you that the correct ruling is that Twinning Booming Blade allows you to make two attacks. I’m just saying that this is not what the rules instruct you to do under a strict technical reading.

 

[Harzel]

Oh, look what I found.

 

[Harzel]

So pretending for the moment that we don't know about that tweet that I just posted, because there's no point in wasting a good argument ...

@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 it seems to me the main point of disagreement here is not the reading of Booming Blade, but rather the reading of Twinned Spell. In addition to the reading reflected in your "order of operations", I can think of two others, both of which seem to me to be more likely to be the intent of Twinned Spell, and one of which is highly attractive in that it makes all the uncertainties just vanish. In particular, the phrase "target a second creature in range with the same spell" could (as alternatives to your take) mean one of
a) cast the spell in a way that it naturally targets two creatures, that is, essentially rewrite the spell as a spell that targets two creatures;
b) treat each creature as having been targeted separately by the spell.

I am skeptical of your take for several reasons. First, it just feels wrong procedurally. For instance, if I Twin, say, Ray of Frost, you would (I guess) have me make an attack roll against one target, and if I hit, roll damage and apply that damage to both creatures? Or with, say, Dominate Person, if the first target fails its save, then both are charmed?

Second, the language "target a second creature in range with the same spell" to me suggests symmetry, and your treatment is very asymmetric. And finally, you treat the language "when you cast a spell ... you can [do x]" as implying a sequential procedure for Twinned Spell, whereas for a number of the Metamagics, the same language clearly means an effect that affects the spell when it is cast (e.g., Quickened, Subtle), and the notion of "affects the spell when cast" is at least consistent with the effect of all the other Metamagics.

With respect to the two alternatives that I proposed, much hinges on what one reads into "same spell". If you think that means the same instance/casting of the spell, then you'd probably be inclined toward (a). But the trouble with (a) is that it seems like even though most spells probably extend to two targets in a fairly straightforward way, perhaps via the kind of gloss that I suggested a number of posts back, there's always the chance that questions arise. (b), OTOH, has no such problem - it is dead obvious what happens - but you have to be willing to understand "same spell" in a slightly more abstract way.

Anyway, my 2 cp (for, I guess, the third time, so that's 6 cp).

 

[TheKing]

First of all i hope everyone understood that what i formerly wrote is only about the melee attack itself is part of the twin effect.

I honestly didnt intent to try telling people how to do read it. My point in general was that There are two ways of Reading it, and many seems very subjective and not able to actually see both ways.

Now people Can disagree all they want, but that doesnt change the fact that you Can read it in different ways regardless if you want to include the triggering part (melee attack/components etc) as being a spell or not...

I do believe the intention is to be able to hit more targets, but i do believe the triggering effect should have Said “as Part of the spell” instead of “as part of the action” cause it right bow directly States its not part of the spell but just a needed triggering effect to activate the spell

Thereby i do aknowledge that the text itself if you break it up and read it actually says its not possible to twin the melee part - that Said i do believe the intention is it should be able too...but we need to wait for Crawford to confirm.

Friend of mine told me Crawford confirmed it was possible to counter it including the melee which indirectly tells the intent is to handle the melee part as Part of the spell and not just part of the action. Observe i havent seen that counterconfirmation but if its true its a valid argument to include the melee into the twin effect also

Also alot of talk about the twin spell mechanism. So many would say what i type now is wrong... but please bear in mind what I say now is only if you break down the text not necessarily the meaning of how it should be understood.
But twin spell directly quotes that you are able to hit a second target with the same spell... the very extreme important text to notice here is "the same spell" meaning that when twin spelled is used, its the same triggering action of the spell that are active and not done twice.
To prove this is actually what happening we can look into the same mechanism of other spells where we all agree on the work arounds, then we can simply take that mechanism as evidence.
So in order to do so we need to look into components that are consumed to actually see if we have to use components/instructions on how to make the actual spell twice. So if we find that you need to consume material/component etc twice when twin spelling, then it per default would mean you have to use the instruction/components every time you twin spell something.
But when we look into it you dont consume additional components (by RAW) in case the spell actually requires it...eg. twin Revivify and you still only consume 300gp. This directly shows that the triggering effect by RAW isnt applied twice when doing twin spell. Therefore accordingly to known RAW it actually speak against twin spelling can make two melee attack since the melee attack is descriped in the spell as an instruction/material/component part before the spell is activated, and since the melee attack itself isnt descriped as being part of the spell but only part of the action it according to the direct text within the booming blade spell could never be aknowledged as part of the spell. This we know cause there are no other spells that can be twinned where what is twinned is not directly stated as a spell or part of the spell.

Again above mentioned about the directly twin spell mechanism, it can be read differently according to the actual intention...but broken down on what the words and text and content directly discripes. Well then the conclusion is regarding booming blade that the melee attack part is not part of the twin effect.

 

[Charlaquin]

So pretending for the moment that we don't know about that tweet that I just posted, because there's no point in wasting a good argument ...

So it seems to me the main point of disagreement here is not the reading of Booming Blade, but rather the reading of Twinned Spell. In addition to the reading reflected in your "order of operations", I can think of two others, both of which seem to me to be more likely to be the intent of Twinned Spell, and one of which is highly attractive in that it makes all the uncertainties just vanish. In particular, the phrase "target a second creature in range with the same spell" could (as alternatives to your take) mean one of
a) cast the spell in a way that it naturally targets two creatures, that is, essentially rewrite the spell as a spell that targets two creatures;
b) treat each creature as having been targeted separately by the spell.

I am skeptical of your take for several reasons. First, it just feels wrong procedurally. For instance, if I Twin, say, Ray of Frost, you would (I guess) have me make an attack roll against one target, and if I hit, roll damage and apply that damage to both creatures? Or with, say, Dominate Person, if the first target fails its save, then both are charmed?

No, because making an attack roll is one of the effects of Ray of Frost, not part of the action used to cast it. So the procedure for Ray of Frost (according to the technical interpretation, which we now have confirmation is not the intended function):
1. You take the Cast a Spell action, performing the requisite Verbal and Somatic components.
2. You spend 1 Sorcery Point to apply the effects of Twinned Spell to Ray of Frost.
3. You apply the effects of Ray of Frost to two targets.

The effects of Ray of Frost are, “ Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, it takes 1d8 cold damage, and its speed is reduced by 10 feet until the start of your next turn,” so you make two ranged spell attacks against different targets.

The difference here is the wording, “ As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails“ vs “make a ranged spell attack.” If they were not meant to function differently (which, again, we have confirmation that they were not,) Booming Blade should have been worded “make a melee weapon attack,” but it was not, and the way it was worded suggests a process performed as part of the Cast a Spell action, much like verbal and somatic components, rather than an effect of the spell itself.

 

[Salthorae]

Oh, look what I found.

Dear lord, thank you for finding that.

Now that I know about it, I'm NOT going to pretend I don't know about that tweet because it directly answers people who would split hairs on this.

The difference here is the wording,

This is an instance where the wording is being made too much of in the GFB and BB spells in terms of what happens when the spell is cast.

Your action is "Cast a Spell". That spell also forces you to make a melee weapon attack. Twin the spell, twin the attack.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is an instance where the wording is being made too much of in the GFB and BB spells in terms of what happens when the spell is cast.

Your action is "Cast a Spell". That spell also forces you to make a melee weapon attack.

That is simply not what the text of the spell says.