Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Can you twin booming blade
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TheKing" data-source="post: 7868056" data-attributes="member: 6972033"><p><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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...</p><p></p><p>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</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TheKing, post: 7868056, member: 6972033"] :) 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Can you twin booming blade
Top