TRPG General Chat

KorvinStarmast

15:00

@Rubiksmoose Why did you edit out the unearthed arcana tag? Stone sorcerer hasn't gone live yet.

doppelspooker

@Delioth I think you're misinterpreting that definition. Merriam-Webster is a descriptivist dictionary. (While a prescriptivist dictionary tries to assert what is true about a language regardless of how people use it, descriptivist dictionaries are mainly interested in reflecting everyday common usage.) Since that is the first and primary definition, it's reflecting the primary everyday common usage of "transparent" -- which means "we can see through it to what's on the other side".

Xirema

@KorvinStarmast Probably because the question isn't really about Stone Sorcerer, so much as Stone Sorcerer is just the incidental catalyst for the question.

Imagine a multiclassed Paladin/Sorcerer instead if you need a "canonical" version of that combo.

doppelspooker

It's excluding the notion of scattering in the sense that people don't tend to say frosted glass is transparent.

KorvinStarmast

@Xirema OK, that's a good enough answer.

doppelspooker

To suggest it is defining "transparent" as "no scattering factor at all" would be to suggest people care about laboratory-condition optics science on a day to day basis.

KorvinStarmast

15:03

@ColinGross @Delioth @doppelspooker I now dub RPG.SE chat Really Pedantic Group Speaking English chat. 8^D

NautArch

@KorvinStarmast "Jeff" for short.

doppelspooker

@KorvinStarmast I'm trying to un-pedant it by pointing out how Merriam Webster isn't interested in being pedantic though.

Rubiksmoose

@KorvinStarmast @Xirema was right. I reverted though because I was unsure if it was actually best. I don't think it's necessary, but I'm not sure if it's harmful.

Delioth

@doppelspooker Oh yeah - I know I'm certainly misrepresenting the definition, if not actually misinterpreting it (I stand by the interpretation as pedantic, even though it's intuitively wrong)

KorvinStarmast

@Rubiksmoose Works for me. @doppelspooker I was trying to make with a joke. I know ,,, Korvin, don't quit your day job!

doppelspooker

15:05

@Delioth If it's misaligned from how we use the term most often in our day-to-day usage, it's misaligned from Merriam Webster.

That's the basis on which I can trivially say MW isn't trying to define a meaning of "transparent" that excludes, say, magnifying glasses or eyeglasses.

Delioth

Or Merriam-Webster is misaligned from our day-to-day despite their efforts to stay in line

(notably due to print cycles, for one)

doppelspooker

@Delioth What you're doing is treating Merriam-Webster as a prescriptivist dictionary though.

If you treat descriptivist dictionaries as prescriptivist or vice versa, you get nonsense as a result.

Delioth

(Can I lightheartedly point out a pedantic distinction between types (goals?) of dictionary in a discussion attempting to un-pedant a conversation?)

doppelspooker

I guess so

Colin Gross

@doppelspooker Or at some point you realize that you're in a semantic discussion with someone who enjoys them }:-) because the initial question was satisfactorily answer a few dozen lines ago.

doppelspooker

15:09

@KorvinStarmast Sorry, maybe bad timing. I'm having a slightly frustrating time IRL. Super noisy environment while I'm trying to get stuff done doesn't go together well.

Colin Gross

@Delioth I think it was more of a semantic disagreement than pedantic.

Delioth

It just struck me as a little ironic in a silly way

@ColinGross The two aren't mutually exclusive

goodguy5

I don't see one, but is there a question about if you can twin a green flame blade and what happens when you do?

Colin Gross

@Delioth Pedantic about semantics?

doppelspooker

@goodguy5 if you can't find one you could ask it and find out when it is/isn't closed as a duplicate :D

goodguy5

15:10

I hate doing that, though

Delioth

I'm actually pretty sure it's almost impossible to have a medium sized discussion on semantics without being pedantic

goodguy5

but fine

NautArch

@goodguy5 I couldn't find one at a first pass. BUt you could generate some fre internet points in conjunction with this

Rubiksmoose

@goodguy5 I almost think there is, I'll look for you if you want to double check.

goodguy5

That's a weird tweet, naut.

I wouldn't say it "targets two"

KorvinStarmast

15:14

@doppelspooker It's all good, I know your heart is in the right place.

goodguy5

It's like saying that you can't twin a spell that generates a wild magic effect because suddenly it does another thing

NautArch

@goodguy5 Are you doubting the Word of Crawford?! :P

KorvinStarmast

@goodguy5 You lost me there.

goodguy5

@KorvinStarmast The secondary effect isn't targeting a creature when you cast the spell.

What if there isn't a secondary creature around? Does the spell suddenly become viable again?

Rubiksmoose

@goodguy5 Nope its all about the potential to be able to affect more than one.

KorvinStarmast

15:16

@Naut, everytime I try to mouse over that link, it disappears behind a report flag. Can you post the link by itself?

goodguy5

Twinned Spell doesn't work with a spell that targets more than 1 creature. Green-flame blade targets 2. #DnD https://twitter.com/SeldenNeil/status/663494041179463680

Tweeted by JeremyECrawford on November 9, 2015 at 12:18 AM

Rubiksmoose

@KorvinStarmast Clearly it means that everyone should report @NautArch right now.

goodguy5

@Rubiksmoose So, then can you twin eldritch bolt from levels 1-4?

KorvinStarmast

@goodguy5 thx

Eldritch Blast?

Rubiksmoose

@goodguy5 Correct, but not after.

goodguy5

15:17

yes, thanks

that's all .... well... silly

Carcer

yes it is

Colin Gross

@Delioth I think that's the title and subtitle of the chat then. "RPG.SE: Medium Sized Discussions on Semantics"

goodguy5

I HAVE GROWN STRONGER AND NOW I SHALL SMITE THEE WITH -
\*talks off screen\* Oh, I can't do that anymore?

I SHALL CONTINUE TO CAST THIS SPELL BUT NOW WITHOUT METAMAGIC

Rubiksmoose

Though I think it does have a good reason. If you start twinning things that target more than one thing you are going to get really serious overpowering problems I think. I can't think of another way to do it that would make things clearer.

@goodguy5 hahaha. Yeah it does seem silly.

KorvinStarmast

@Rubiksmoose Twinning Scorching Ray would give six, not three, scorchers, right? (Don't we have a Q on that where if there is only one target, you can twin scorching ray?)

Colin Gross

15:20

@Rubiksmoose Twinned chain lightning! Double helix of electrical doom!

What's the twinned version of vicious mockery? "Y'all suck"

Sir Cinnamon

@ColinGross That guy amd the guy next to him in particular. you in the back, youre fine

GreySage

@KorvinStarmast Crawfords definition of "targets one creature" is pretty wack. As far as he is concerned, any spell that could affect more than 1 thing is ineligible for Twinned Spell.

Rubiksmoose

@KorvinStarmast Quick search doesn't pull one up, but I know there have been similar questions (or maybe I'm just crazy)(.

KorvinStarmast

Hmm, the rules say scorching ray is not eligible for Twinned.

Sir Cinnamon

@GreySage Does fire bolt affect two because fire comes out of you and hits someone else?

GreySage

15:22

So no, you can't twin scorching ray, since you could target 2 different creatures with the beams

Colin Gross

@GreySage How else do you keep fireball and lightning bolt from being twinned?

And magic missile

GreySage

@SirCinnamon Now we're getting into why his definition is so wack

Colin Gross

That one gets hella nasty if you twin it at a higher level.

KorvinStarmast

@GreySage Yeah, I misread that. Just went back and looked.

Colin Gross

@GreySage ooooo... I smell another pedantic semantic discussion... hold on. I need to get more coffee.

GreySage

15:23

What about cure wounds? You target 1 creature, but if that creature goes on to kill 3 goblins, clearly you are affecting those goblins too.

KorvinStarmast

@ColinGross Don't forget to spike it with Irish Whisky

Colin Gross

@GreySage That's a distil effect. We're only talking about proximal effects.

Rubiksmoose

@ColinGross Yeah that is what I keep coming back to as well. I'm not s ure there is a better way to do this and I think this is the exact thing they are designing around.

goodguy5

And it's generally accepted that ice knife can affect multiple creatures (and be twinned)

KorvinStarmast

@GreySage No, that's an indirect effect.

GreySage

15:24

@goodguy5 Crawford said it can't be

goodguy5

ah. fair enough

Colin Gross

@GreySage Yeah. That's messed up, right?

GreySage

Neither can Dragon's Breath (or whatever its called)

Personally I disagree and ignore that in my games

Colin Gross

@GreySage dndbeyond.com/spells/ice-knife Oh... it has an AOE

That's why

goodguy5

yea. I found it

Rubiksmoose

15:26

@GreySage I mean how do you even rule AOEs with twinned then? I can't even think of a way in which they work.

goodguy5

Jeremy goes into excruciating detail on this subject, and clarifies that if the spell has the potential to do anything to anyone beyond a single chosen target, it can't be twinned

wait, but does that undo the ability to twin hex and hunters mark?

Colin Gross

Seems like getting two instances of any spell would be heinously OP.

GreySage

@ColinGross And yet it's a thing that you can do... sometimes... maybe

Colin Gross

@GreySage Would you propose limiting it in a different fashion or omitting it altogether?

Rubiksmoose

@goodguy5 I think hex can be twinned.

5

Q: Can a Twinned Hex be targeted at or moved onto a single creature?

In light of the recent Sorcerer nerf w/ Draconic Bloodline + Scorching ray I went in search of a damage boost. I figure Twinned Spell (PHB, p. 102) + Hex (PHB, p. 251) is a good combo. (Note that Hex can only target a single creature at any level, so it should work with Twinned Spell.) My plan ...

Delioth

15:28

This GM would throw out the "only targets one thing" restriction and just restrict it so that AoE's can't overlap/they can but they only count once

Colin Gross

@Delioth Twinned magic missle is pretty devastating at higher level.

Delioth

I'd totally let you twin fireball, but you don't get to deal double damage, just a big area.

goodguy5

@Rubiksmoose But why does that qualify as "doesn't have the potential to affect more than one creature"?

GreySage

@ColinGross I'm fine with not twinning AoEs, but anything that specifically targets 1 creature (and is meant to target 1 creature, like Ice Knife) qualifies for Twin in my book.

Rubiksmoose

@goodguy5 I'm not sure if that is official or not, but it is what the Q&A implies. I wonder about that though.

GreySage

15:30

@Delioth I'd also be fine with this

goodguy5

It seems like they missed some edge cases with the book that released those spells

afk meeting

NautArch

The Word's general rule:

Twinned Spell test: can the spell affect only one creature at the spell's current level, and is its range not self? If yes, TS works. #DnD https://twitter.com/mrprotoman/status/852657423089324032

Tweeted by JeremyECrawford on April 14, 2017 at 1:39 AM

Colin Gross

@GreySage So single target, but AOE is fine. AOE without single target is out?

Yuuki

@NautArch That also brings up the question of whether it matters if the spell is only affecting one creature at the time or if it's considering a theoretical maximum.

Like what if you're just targeting the BBEG with Fireball?

GreySage

@ColinGross So Ice Knife, Dragon Breath, Hex would all work for me.

Delioth

15:32

@ColinGross "Meh"? If they're investing a high-level spell slot as well as sorcery points, that's a lot of investment anyways. Maybe put a stipulation that for things like Magic Missile, any one creature can only be targeted by 1 full spell's worth, but that seems like too much restriction. Probably more of a "you can do this, guys, if you aren't buggers about it. WotC technically has a different interpretation"

Colin Gross

That's interesting... just any single target spell then regardless of other effects.

Yuuki

He's the only one being hit, can you Twin it?

Colin Gross

Seems simpler.

Rubiksmoose

@Yuuki I think hex is a good example of that. I might actually post a question about it.

Yuuki

@GreySage Isn't Dragon Breath's range "self"?

Colin Gross

15:33

@Yuuki Fireball targets a point, not a creature.

Rubiksmoose

@Yuuki It is.

Colin Gross

@Yuuki Self is one creature, yes?

Rubiksmoose

Self spells are explicitly disallowed by Twinned restrictions.

Yuuki

Crawford's tweet also mentions that the range can't be self or at least that's how I'm parsing it.

Colin Gross

@Rubiksmoose Yes, but @GreySage's proposal would be single creature targets are fine. I do think that would make it simpler to adjudicate.

Yuuki

15:34

3 mins ago, by Yuuki

@NautArch That also brings up the question of whether it matters if the spell is only affecting one creature at the time or if it's considering a theoretical maximum.

GreySage

@Yuuki Dragon's Breath is Touch, 1 willing creature. Self spells are excluded from TS explicitly

Rubiksmoose

@Yuuki Doesn't this open the door to Paladin/steed/twinned stuff breaking?

Yuuki

@GreySage Huh. Could've sworn it was self and the only reason the wizard's familiar could Dragon Breath was because you can target familiars with self spells.

GreySage

@Yuuki Nope, feel free to let your Ranger breathe fire all day long

Rubiksmoose

I thought it was self as well. Oops. I stand corrected.

Colin Gross

15:37

Fire breathing rangers are all the rage these days.

It used to be barbarians.

But that was just a fad.

NautArch

@Yuuki I'm pretty certain it's theoretical maximum.

GreySage

I've said it before, but I dislike how they don't define "target", but then use it to define other things.

Rubiksmoose

@GreySage I agree with this so much. They never define what is or isn't considered a target of a spell and it really makes adjudicating some features a huge pain.

Carcer

is dndbeyond.com/compendium/rules/basic-rules/spellcasting#Targets not specific enough

Rubiksmoose

@Carcer Let me ask a question back: So are creatures in a fireball spell considered targets of the spell given that passage?

Xirema

15:43

You guys are thinking so small on Twinned Spell, trying to work out what spells it can and can not affect. Meanwhile, Cyanic is proposing that Twinned Spell works by taking two split timelines, one where the spell targets A, the other where the spell targets B, and merging them together into the same timeline.

Carcer

@Rubiksmoose No

they're affected by it but are not strictly defined as targets

GreySage

@Xirema That's certainly a creative and flavourful explanation

Xirema

GalaxyBrainMeme.jpg

Carcer

now, is there some other feature which can interplay with fireball where this causes confusion?

asking honestly, I'm not trying to come across a git

Yuuki

@Xirema Twinned Spell is actually a slow time ritual wherein the caster communes with the personification of magic and convinces it to undergo IVF instead of natural birth to increase the chance of twin spells all within in the span of a bonus action.

Carcer

15:46

@Yuuki this even almost makes sense in the Forgtten Realms.

Wait, is mystra meant to be alive or dead at the moment?

Delioth

The only issue with rules that I see with that (awesome) interpretation of twinned spell is... why wouldn't it work with any AoE effects? I could certainly imagine merging the timelines while there are fireball beads going towards 2 separate locations

David Coffron

@Carcer which mystra? There's been 3

Xirema

@Delioth It would work with AOE spells in that interpretation.

Carcer

@DavidCoffron Mystryl doesn't count as a Mystra

Yuuki

@Delioth AoE spells are naturally resistant to multi-universal theory.

David Coffron

15:47

@Carcer what about the little girl who became mystra

Delioth

@Xirema Yeah, but the rules expressly disallow that with the "one target" restriction. I mean, I'm personally open to allowing all spells to Twin (and just overlapping area rather than stacking), but the interpretation doesn't match the RAW

Carcer

@DavidCoffron specifically what I meant was is there an incarnation of mystra that is currentyl alive

Rubiksmoose

@Carcer There are other features that make this complicated but the PHB and JC are the ones that confuse the thing because fireball explicitly calls the creatures in its area targets. The PHB also implies later that all creatures in an AOE are considered targets. And JC backs this up.

16

A: Can a charmed person harm their charmer with Burning Hands?

No, burning hands targets the creatures in its AOE Burning hands is noted as having targets specifically in the DMG The DMG specifically calls out the creatures affected by burning hands to be targets in an example: For example, if a wizard directs burning hands (a 15-foot cone) at a near...

David Coffron

@Carcer yes. Her mortal name was Midnight

forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Midnight

NautArch

@DavidCoffron I'm very much hoping that Qazwsx sees my comment. They are posting a lot of homebrew stuff.

Carcer

15:50

yeah, was just reading the FR wiki and noting that she died and came back again

@Rubiksmoose ah, fair enough, if they can't even be consistent in the spell definitions

I had forgotten that Midnight's deal was that she just took the same name to avoid confusion

thought there was a more direct inheritance

Rubiksmoose

@Carcer Yeah it is just really confusing because everything in the rules and the clarifications seem to point in three different directions.

David Coffron

@NautArch yeah. I love to see new people getting into homebrew but they really need to put in the work to know how to do it well in 5e. There are some new design principles that should be followed

Rubiksmoose

Luckily it isn't an issue most of the time, but it does come up. For example, if AOEs only had a single target (a point in space for example) they could all be twinned.

Yuuki

@DavidCoffron What if I made this ranger subclass that has a special ability to automatically kill one enemy per long rest? And if they don't use the ability, they keep the use?

That's totally balanced, right?

Colin Gross

@Yuuki At L13 it goes up to per short rest.

Carcer

15:56

@Rubiksmoose twinned spell does specify a single target creature, not just a single target

Yuuki

@ColinGross Capstone is that it can be done at-will.

Carcer

a point of origin might be a single target but it is not a creature

Colin Gross

@Carcer That's a fair ... point.

Carcer

@ColinGross get out

Colin Gross

Ha! yeah... yeah

Carcer

15:58

@Yuuki No, make it use a spell slot.

NautArch

@DavidCoffron Or do something like that on GiTP. It's low effort what they're doing right now.

Rubiksmoose

@Carcer very good point! You're exactly right there.

KorvinStarmast

I find Crawford's ruling on the transmutation dragon breath not being twinnable to be a farce. The spell effect is on the creature that will be able to breath like a dragon. It's like Haste, which can be twinned. A hasted barbarian can hurt other creatures; a dragon breath barbarian can hurt other creatures. Bad, Bad ruling and poor logic.

GreySage

@KorvinStarmast Agreed

Rubiksmoose

@KorvinStarmast at the very least he does seem to be making a very fine distinction with that ruling. and it isn't clear where the line is being drawn.

@KorvinStarmast On the other hand, he might just say: "you're right! You can Twin haste either." lol

Carcer

16:05

well, Crawford isn't always consistent. Or sensible.

Rubiksmoose

@Carcer Absolutely true lol

NautArch

@Carcer Blasphemer!

Rubiksmoose

Or, more kindly perhaps: his logic isn't always as well thought-out as it should be.

Yuuki

@Carcer Is he also not always inconsistent?

Carcer

@Yuuki he is inconsistently consistent

Yuuki

16:08

Or is he consistently inconsistent?

Carcer

no, he is consistent sometimes

Yuuki

Fair enough.

Maximillian

Probably still better than the old Games Workshop rule conflict resolution chart.

Rule problem -> resolve it the way it would actually happen -> If you still have questions, email us, because we disconnected the phone -> Please don't point out two different people gave you two different answers -> We're done helping you at this point, besides the other player probably hates you now and won't play.

KorvinStarmast

@Maximillian Well played. (But I am still waiting for their email to prove that I was right!)

Carcer

I have had occasion to resolve conflicts with games workshop twice

once they very ambiguously sort of threatened to sue me, which I ignored and nothing happened

Maximillian

16:21

"Resolve it the way it would really happen" was a real thing they had printed.

Tip: Don't argue physics of imaginary weapons in WH40K

Carcer

translator's note: "the way it would really happen" means "the ultramarines win, wherever they are"

David Coffron

@KorvinStarmast wait what? He rield that way?

KorvinStarmast

@DavidCoffron against twinning dragons breath on two allies in a party.

@Carcer The did in the movie, didn't they?

Maximillian

"Find the nearest Ultramarines player if your game doesn't have any. Inform them they won. Failing that, find the nearest Dawn of War player and inform them the Blood Ravens win."

Rubiksmoose

Dragon's breath has two sets of targets: the creature you give the breath weapon to and the creatures in the area of effect created by the spell. #DnD https://twitter.com/zoozeki/status/944278238905352192

Tweeted by JeremyECrawford on December 22, 2017 at 6:51 PM

Dragon's breath can affect more than one creature with the exhalation. It therefore can't be twinned. #DnD https://twitter.com/TheSandwichPira/status/944271465708322816

Tweeted by JeremyECrawford on December 22, 2017 at 6:26 PM

And I actually think he would rule that Hex cannot be twinned

Maximillian

16:30

Twin crawford and ask both the same question. Make the one that answers incorrectly disappear.

Rubiksmoose

Telekinesis can affect multiple creatures over the course of its duration. It's not eligible for Twinned Spell. #DnD https://twitter.com/HeathDawson/status/915697666193010688

Tweeted by JeremyECrawford on October 4, 2017 at 10:00 PM

Maximillian

alternatively, create an Evil_Crawford account the issues errata on Crawford.

Sir Cinnamon

Dang, what CAN you twin

Rubiksmoose

@Maximillian OMG this is an incredible idea lol

Maximillian

"You can twin Dragon Breath, but in doing so an innocent in your game world dies."

David Coffron

16:32

@Rubiksmoose I think I might agree with that

GreySage

@Maximillian I wonder if this is illegal in any way...

Rubiksmoose

@DavidCoffron Well I'm posting a question about it right now so think on it!

Maximillian

Parody accounts exist, most of them get to stay if they're clearly labeled a parody account.

Rubiksmoose

@GreySage In the US at least parody accounts don't seem to be illegal in general.

Xirema

@Carcer Crawford is pretty regularly consistent. The problem is that he rarely answers a question directly. He'll usually defer back to some regurgitation of the rules in the handbook/etc. Which wouldn't be so bad, except that often, if someone's going to ask for a rule's clarification, it's specifically because the rules-as-written were ambiguous/unclear.

Rubiksmoose

16:35

@Xirema I mean also to be fair he gets asked a lot of questions whose answers are plain readings of the rules as well.

Just like here.

Xirema

@Rubiksmoose You're not wrong.

I think I got into a fight with someone here over whether Empowered Spell could affect all damage dice for Eldritch Blast or not. Crawford issued a ruling for Chaos Bolt that says "all damage dice of a spell are eligible", which technically answers the question, but doesn't address the specific concern (namely the damage being split across multiple attack rolls) so when someone tries to address a different spell, the ruling becomes difficult to apply.

NautArch

@Xirema I'm still kinda miffed about his GWF ruling on divine smites. I think it's silly especially when a big part of his 'logic' was too many dice rerolls isn't fun because it slows down the table.

Xirema

@NautArch Does he play at tables where they all have to share the same set of exactly 1 die of each type d4 d6 d8 d10 d12 d20 d%?

NautArch

@Xirema ha!

Maximillian

That was a concern with 5E. Remove rolls here and there. Remove numbers bigger than 5. Dunno how I feel about that.

Xirema

16:43

@Maximillian I like the bounded accuracy aspect of 5e overall, including lowering the numbers (makes small changes more meaningful) but reducing the number of rolls misses the point, I think.

Especially since "more rolls" is easily fixed with "roll more of your dice at once".

Maximillian

Evil Crawford: Roll all of the dice you have. Take the average. Good enough.

Round up if it's Thursday otherwise round down.

(Thursdays are empowered)

Xirema

My Paladin keeps Bless up pretty regularly, so whenever I attack, I roll 6 dice at once, 3 of each color: (1d4 (Bless) + 1d20 (attack roll) + 1d8 (Longsword weapon damage)) * 2.

I just match the colors together, and I know A) if I hit, and B) how much damage I did with that attack.

NautArch

@Xirema I used to have bless as a standard, but less so more recently (mostly due to my +3 glaive)

Xirema

@NautArch We're still only level 6, + we don't get Haste (or really any other Concentration Spell worth maintaining).

NautArch

but when i run a concentration spell, that's usually it. I also have a ring of earth elemental and that gives me stoneskin which I often use.

@Xirema Protection from evil and good is surprisingly useful

Xirema

16:47

@NautArch Yeah, but we fight a lot of humanoids in our campaign. I'd definitely be running it if we were fighting a lot of undead/demons/whatever.

Rubiksmoose

There we go. Question posted. Now we can fight about this on mainsite lol cc @DavidCoffron

NautArch

@Xirema aberrations, celestials, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead

that's a lot of creature types :)

David Coffron

@Rubiksmoose I think Crawford's logic is dumb but there's the answer. I don't like how Crawford uses the word "affect" but hex does target multiple creatures over the duratiom

Rubiksmoose

@DavidCoffron Yeah so much of the time in this issues he uses affect and target interchangeably, which is really bad.

David Coffron

@Rubiksmoose especially here:

Twinned Spell test: can the spell affect only one creature at the spell's current level, and is its range not self? If yes, TS works. #DnD https://twitter.com/mrprotoman/status/852657423089324032

Tweeted by JeremyECrawford on April 14, 2017 at 1:39 AM

Rubiksmoose

16:56

Ugh yeah that one is really blatant. Especially since he is trying to set up a rule.

David Coffron

@Rubiksmoose it causes the dragon's breath problem.

Dragon's breath can "affect" multiple creatures, but doent "target" them

@Maximillian VtC: Duplicate

@NautArch come to think of it, why is this not a fighter subclass. There is precedent for subclasses focused on one weapon (Arcane Archer). It would make way more sense and be very easy to balance around Arcane Archer

NautArch

@DavidCoffron THat's a really good way of looking at it. The Darts and their special properties are equivalent to the arcane archer choices.

David Coffron

@NautArch why are darts melee weapons In his homebrew. That is very weird...

NautArch

Shearing @nitsua60: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/132924/…

David Coffron

@NautArch (I've been told it's better to flag than to ping in chat). Not sure what your calling him for anyway lol. Seems like a fine question

NautArch

17:04

@DavidCoffron I think they come up with good ideas, but then develop slapdash homebrew.

@DavidCoffron because sheep :)

David Coffron

@NautArch oh. I'm dumb

Whoops

NautArch

it's actually a pretty interesting question

GreySage

@NautArch Interesting, and it is very similar to Arcane Archer. I don't know why the OP is using materials from a kit instead of charges or uses, and having so many recover on a short rest is pretty broken.

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch I could have sworn we had something similar, but I looked through and didn't find anything.

NautArch

@GreySage Making things more difficult than they need to be? Standard human operating procedure.

Rubiksmoose

17:12

18

Q: Do removed parts of a Druid's Wild Shape form persist after said Druid exits Wild Shape?

A player wanted to use Wild Shape as an unlimited supply of feathers for our ranger to make his own arrows with and it sparked a discussion on whether or not parts of a Druid that are removed from said Druid's Wild Shape persist after the Druid is no longer in Wild Shape. I have been unable to f...

dnd-5e druid wild-shape

David Coffron

@Rubiksmoose enkryptor found it (I looked too)

Rubiksmoose

That is the one I was thinking of. Not a dupe though.

I was only looking through polymorph ones though. I didn't even consider WS. Makes sense.

KorvinStarmast

@Rubiksmoose This opens the idea of the poop disappearing after the druid / bear goes in the woods ... that was a part of the answer that I don't think gets enough credit.

David Coffron

@Rubiksmoose still bothers me that they didn't take the time to balance the CR options of polymorph as an offensive spell

KorvinStarmast

@DavidCoffron You only get a few spell slots. They balanced versus the resource exhaustion of the 6-8 encounters ... not a 5 minute adventure day. Plus polymorph is an iconic D&D spell, sorta like fireball and lightning bolt.

David Coffron

17:23

Just means my intelligent NPCs try to focus the caster which means the fun of being a massive beast is short lived. If the massive beast had the same threat level of the PCs it's be more reasonable for them to actually fight the beast

KorvinStarmast

If it's a little cooler than other spells, fine. It fits the genre well. And who doesn't want to be able to be turned into King Kong or a TRex

David Coffron

I'm glad it's cool but it could've been toned down a bit. I always feel guilty trying to break the casters concentration

KorvinStarmast

It burns a level 4 spell slot. That needs to have a good payoff.

(I saw a thing recently about most D&D games never getting out of tier 2).

David Coffron

@KorvinStarmast it's just a bit too good. Compare it to conjure minor elemental for example

@KorvinStarmast not surprised. Very few people like to start games past tier 1 and it's hard to get a group to stick together long term

Rubiksmoose

@DavidCoffron Do you mean it needs to be more powerful or less?

KorvinStarmast

17:29

@DavidCoffron Somedays, I just want to turn our bard into a TRex and let him attack that Frost Giant. Why? Because it's cool! I only get to do it once at 7th level ...

NautArch

@KorvinStarmast My bard has turned into a t-rex a few times :)

KorvinStarmast

Did he trample the enemies while bellowing/singing "Give It To me!"

NautArch

@KorvinStarmast C'mon man! You know T-rex's can't sing!

...but they can bang a gong.

KorvinStarmast

@NautArch Whoops, I was remembering a J Geils band song.

Xirema

On the subject of spells that can or cannot be Twinned, is Shield of Faith ineligible to be twinned, because the AC increase affects more than one target?

(specifically, it affects the attack rolls of more than one creature)

((Yes, I'm being a smart-butt. That's a rhetorical question))

Rubiksmoose

17:44

@NautArch Mine too! so fun!

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose Be careful - don't do it when in darkness. Speaking from experience :(

Xirema

I move that Protection from Good and Evil also be ineligible, on the grounds that it causes more than one creature, potentially, to receive disadvantage on their attacks.

NautArch

@Xirema how?

KorvinStarmast

@Xirema Now that's crazy talk. Uh, sorta like Crawford talk. He seems to be aiming to kill the Twinned metamagic ... not sure why.

David Coffron

@Rubiksmoose less. A CR 7 (from polymorph) is far more powerful than a CR 2 elemental and a level 7 party member (from conjure minor elementals)

GreySage

17:46

@Xirema That is actually pretty comparable to Dragon's Breath

It's an effect of the spell that affects multiple creatures, opposed to just altering the stats of 1 creature.

KorvinStarmast

I have a new shadow sorcerer; what meta magic should I use when I get that feature? Twinned seems to be dying on the vine ...

NautArch

oh - gotcha. The target and effects are for the recipient. They have disadvantage on attcaks against you. not in general. It's all about you, man.

Xirema

@KorvinStarmast Twinned can still be used with Booming Blade.... for now.

GreySage

@Xirema He does seem to like that one combo

Rubiksmoose

@KorvinStarmast Only if you care what Crawford says.

David Coffron

17:47

@KorvinStarmast that would be perfectly balanced at around level 14

Rubiksmoose

That being said, all this is begging the question if Crawford's way is dumb is there a better way?

Xirema

@Rubiksmoose I think the Postmodernist's take in my answer to that question is the best take.

David Coffron

@Rubiksmoose use target as an actual term and not "affect" and all is fine in my eyes

Xirema

> Does anything actually exist?

Delioth

@KorvinStarmast You kindly ask your GM to ignore Crawford's interpretations on Twinned

NautArch

17:48

but having said that, i don't understand how dragon's breath is a problem.

Rubiksmoose

@DavidCoffron But then begins the endless questions about what actually targets what which is even more confusing.

GreySage

"I target the universe"
"So, you target all the creatures and things? It's an AoE spell then."
"No, it's single target, the universe is a single thing."

Rubiksmoose

@Xirema hahaha yeah if a player started saying things like that I would simply sigh get a tall glass of whiskey on the rocks then ask them calmly if they really want to go down that road lol

David Coffron

@Rubiksmoose true. Idk

Rubiksmoose

Because I am legit confused as to what the rules are even trying to get us to call a target even ignoring all of JC's stuff.

Well, I guess I do think they paint a somewhat clear picture I guess, but it goes counter to what most people think (as I pointed out here)

David Coffron

17:52

@Rubiksmoose I think it is any creature affected by the immediate spell effect. All targets hit by an aoe are targets. The creature from hex is a target. All attacked creatures are targets. A creature attacked by spiritual weapon is not a target

It's different from Trading Card Games like Magic the gathering and Yugioh

Rubiksmoose

@DavidCoffron This is my reading as well. I wouldn't consider creatures attacked from Haste targets.

Jason_c_o

I don't think target is solely aggressive

NautArch

I keep wanting to provide an explanation/reasoning and I keep changing my mind. It just doesn't make sense.

Jason_c_o

I do think haste targets

Rubiksmoose

@Jason_c_o haste does target for sure. But only the creature that haste is put on IMO.

Jason_c_o

17:54

but I don't think Dragon's Breath and Hex are comparable; the second creature mentioned in Haste isn't a target until declared as one (ie the first one dies)

well yeah

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose But would you consider creatures attacked from Dragon's Breath?

Rubiksmoose

Creatures that they then attack should not be considered targets of the spell.

Jason_c_o

not haste, hex***

mentioned in hex*

Xirema

@NautArch I very specifically do NOT consider those, because you, the person casting the spell, didn't get to choose those targets. You didn't "target" them when casting the spell.

The effect of Dragon's Breath is "give one creature the ability to breathe fire".

Full stop, IMO.

Jason_c_o

When you throw a grenade, you have targets. When you use Dragon's Breath, you know whom you want to hit

NautArch

17:56

@Xirema I think I agree :)

Sir Cinnamon

@Jason_c_o When you cast the spell dragons breath or when you consume the ability granted by the spell though?

Jason_c_o

hmm that makes sense

Rubiksmoose

@Jason_c_o Not true actually DB gives you the ability to breathe fire, but it does not make an attack.

NautArch

but then what about Hex? You are targeting a creature, and only one creature. But you can then move that target to another creature.

Jason_c_o

I think Hex should be twinned. It only has one target

Delioth

17:57

@Jason_c_o But you don't know who you want to hit. You know who you want to give the ability to breathe a cone to, but for all you know, that person could be a traitor and you might be on the receiving end

Rubiksmoose

I would say Hex has multiple targets strctly.

GreySage

@SirCinnamon Beathing doesn't consume the ability granted by the spell, you have the option to use the action it gives you for the entire spell duration (1min concentration)

Xirema

@NautArch My gut instinct is that, in that case, you're "choosing a new target" as part of the effect of the spell, therefore it isn't eligible. But TBH if a DM said otherwise, I wouldn't feel strongly enough to contest it.

Jason_c_o

It has the potential to shift targets. Dragon's Breath falls closer to AoE

Rubiksmoose

@Xirema In fact, I would probably allow it straight out.

Sir Cinnamon

17:57

@GreySage Right, I learned that recently, bad choice of words there

Rubiksmoose

I'm just trying to find a way to not be overrestrictive and be consistent.

Jason_c_o

I think Hex and Dragon's Breath are apples and oranges

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose @Xirema I think I'd disallow. The whole purpose of hex/hunter's mark is multiple ongoing targeting.

Xirema

@Rubiksmoose It all depends on whether that second creature is "targeted" or not by the spell.

Rubiksmoose

@Xirema I think it pretty clearly is.

Jason_c_o

17:59

It is, but not at the same time as the first

so it's still only targeting one

Rubiksmoose

@Jason_c_o Sure, but nothing says that the restrcition has a time limit.

Transcript for