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 LIVE! 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="NotAYakk" data-source="post: 7908809" data-attributes="member: 72555"><p>That is the thing. To me, ray of frost <strong>is as ambiguously written as booming blade</strong>.</p><p></p><p>It has all of the same components and the same logic works to say that you don't get a 2nd attack.</p><p></p><p>We can fall back to natural language. In which case, both spells clearly have 1 target. And the minimal changes you'd do to each spell to give them a 2nd target and have them work are clear <strong>in both cases</strong>.</p><p></p><p>If we use restrictive reading and "only add an additional target, no other changes", then the extra target is useless in both spells. You don't get another beam, you don't get another spell attack.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>to turn this into a two target spell, you do this:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Booming blade reads as follows:</p><p></p><p></p><p>To turn this into a two target spell, you do this:</p><p></p><p></p><p>Both require rewording to handle a 2nd target. The rewording in each case is no larger than the other. I guess you could drop "<strong>on that target</strong>" and have only the first moving creature take the damage.</p><p></p><p>In 5e, the spell picking a creature causes it to be a target of the spell. Not "I cast a spell and pick targets then read the text". If the text picks creatures? Those are the targets.</p><p></p><p>If you don't do that rewording, both spells don't make sense with 2 targets. If you do do the rewording, both spells make sense with two targets.</p><p></p><p>I understand your position -- that somehow, the melee weapon attack makes these fundamentally different -- and it seems to be grounded in the idea that sorcerers cannot make two weapon attacks as part of the attack action without using a spell, so they shouldn't be allowed to do it as part of a spell.</p><p></p><p>And if there was a balance implication of letting a sorcerer who spent resources on learning booming blade, built up their attack stat, and burned sorcery points to getting a 2nd attack booming blade attack, I might houserule that booming blade doesn't work with twinspell.</p><p></p><p>But I'm not seeing the problem with treating it like any other "you attack the target" spell being twinned and making the same minimal modifications to make it make sense. Because that seems (to me) to be the intention of twin spell, if not how it was worded when read strictly.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="NotAYakk, post: 7908809, member: 72555"] That is the thing. To me, ray of frost [B]is as ambiguously written as booming blade[/B]. It has all of the same components and the same logic works to say that you don't get a 2nd attack. We can fall back to natural language. In which case, both spells clearly have 1 target. And the minimal changes you'd do to each spell to give them a 2nd target and have them work are clear [B]in both cases[/B]. If we use restrictive reading and "only add an additional target, no other changes", then the extra target is useless in both spells. You don't get another beam, you don't get another spell attack. to turn this into a two target spell, you do this: Booming blade reads as follows: To turn this into a two target spell, you do this: Both require rewording to handle a 2nd target. The rewording in each case is no larger than the other. I guess you could drop "[B]on that target[/B]" and have only the first moving creature take the damage. In 5e, the spell picking a creature causes it to be a target of the spell. Not "I cast a spell and pick targets then read the text". If the text picks creatures? Those are the targets. If you don't do that rewording, both spells don't make sense with 2 targets. If you do do the rewording, both spells make sense with two targets. I understand your position -- that somehow, the melee weapon attack makes these fundamentally different -- and it seems to be grounded in the idea that sorcerers cannot make two weapon attacks as part of the attack action without using a spell, so they shouldn't be allowed to do it as part of a spell. And if there was a balance implication of letting a sorcerer who spent resources on learning booming blade, built up their attack stat, and burned sorcery points to getting a 2nd attack booming blade attack, I might houserule that booming blade doesn't work with twinspell. But I'm not seeing the problem with treating it like any other "you attack the target" spell being twinned and making the same minimal modifications to make it make sense. Because that seems (to me) to be the intention of twin spell, if not how it was worded when read strictly. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Can you twin booming blade
Top