Role-playing Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for gamemasters and players of tabletop, paper-and-pencil role-playing games. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The Player's Handbook states that when cast as a 3rd level or higher spell, Blindness/Deafness can target additional targets equal to the difference between the spell slot the spell is cast at and its base spell slot level of 2.

My question is, would it be legal to cast Blindness/Deafness as a 3rd level spell, but instead of having either effect (blindness OR deafness) target two creatures, have it target one creature with both effects (blindness AND deafness.)

I'm having a hard time deciding whether this would provide an overpowered effect, as it increases the amount of disabilities one creature will suffer from, but lessens the number of creatures affected by the spell.

Perhaps it could be legal provided the targeted creature gets to make a separate CON save against each effect?

share|improve this question
    
Keep in mind the only difference will be cosmetic. Since disadvantage doesn't stack it will have little or no mechanical difference. – Escoce Jan 19 at 16:40
    
Not entirely @Escoce, targeting the same creature twice would also mean that it needs to succeed 2 Constitution saving throws else suffer disadvantage further if both failed and the target were blind and deaf, I would believe they would need to pass a Con saving throw to remedy each. – David Jacobsen Jan 19 at 19:18
    
@DavidJacobsen fair enough, I wasn't considering that, only considered that disadvantage doesn't stack – Escoce Jan 19 at 21:51
up vote 13 down vote accepted

Per rules as written, no. The spell clearly says either one or the other, not both.

However, if a DM was to allow it, it probably wouldn't break much. The biggest concern would be that stealth against the target would likely be an automatic success, but that doesn't mean much when the target clearly knows that its senses are being suppressed.

share|improve this answer

The spell clearly states that you cannot target the same creature multiple times

This is from the spell text:

At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, you can target one additional creature for each slot level above 2nd.

The same creature again isn't an additional creature. Each target needs to be a different creature.

share|improve this answer
    
+1. While I agree, I think you could make an argument against it. I'm not personally prepared to do that though. – Premier Bromanov Jan 19 at 15:52
    
@PremierBromanov If I said you could buy one apple for $0.50, or if you paid me $0.75 I would give you the original apple and an additional apple, would you be happy if you paid me $0.75 and I gave you the same apple twice? – Percival Jan 19 at 16:37
4  
No but I would be happy to cast the same spell on someone twice. I don't think your analogy holds up. – Premier Bromanov Jan 19 at 16:41
    
@Percival In your analogy, apples are consumable: once given, they're no longer available to give. That would only be true of the question if casting the spell consumed the target in a way that excludes them from future castings. You analogy is equivalent to “if I cast blindness on a creature, can I cast it again to make them more blind?” – Slipp D. Thompson Jan 19 at 16:51
1  
@Percival: Instead of apples, think of Cheech's special penny pussy sale speech in "From Dusk Till Dawn". Getting the same service a second time for only a penny works perfectly well, nobody would complain. – Damon Jan 19 at 20:34

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.