Can I twin cast a cantrip used with reaper from the death domain?

This is the example I've just come across, but I have definitely run across many similar questions. A duplicate question should be thoroughly answered by an existing question. This question is asking about a rule that is a different rule with different wording than the 'duplicate' question.

An expert can look at the 'duplicate' question and infer that the rules interaction showcased there can (or could) also apply to Reaper and Twin Spell's interaction. A layman may not. In fact, having just interacted with a lot of beginner players, I would lay significant money that they would not 99% of the time. Likewise, someone searching for that specific interaction may not know to search for another, similar rules interaction to find an answer, especially if they are unfamiliar with the Stack Exchange site.

Why are questions about rules interactions that are in the same category as other rules interactions questions, but involve different rules or different interactions of those rules, marked as duplicate?

  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ Are you asking about this question specifically, or are you asking in general? I'm not sure the more general question has a good general answer. We have our duplicate criteria, and so the answer to your question here is something like "because someone thinks it fits our existing guidance for dupes", which I don't think is really that helpful. Since we're talking about the application of existing guidance, I think this question might work better as a case-by-case approach. You see a closure that concerns you, ask about it on meta. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Nov 26, 2022 at 17:35
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Can you clarify - does the duplicate target still answer the question closed as duplicate? Is it just not obvious it does? Or does the duplicate target not answer the closed question? Is there perhaps some but not complete overlap? \$\endgroup\$
    – VLAZ
    Commented Nov 28, 2022 at 8:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ @VLAZ Good questions that sort of get at the concern in my comment - different answers to those question probably warrant different approaches to curating questions. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Nov 28, 2022 at 13:39
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Concerning the linked question. Since both the question and duplicate target have the same context, reasoning and answer, but only swapping one of the features with another feature which has nearly-identical wording... Wouldn't it make sense to mark it as duplicate, and assume that any visitor will understand from the duplicate link that the answer is the same? From what I've read, it seems like the only reason to keep it open is because it concerns a feature with a different name. \$\endgroup\$
    – Matthieu
    Commented Nov 30, 2022 at 11:24

1 Answer 1


That particular question is a dupe and there are numerous similar cases

At the very least, this certainly isn't the only case of non-exact duplicates being closed as duplicates:

That said, personally, for me, I see no meaningful difference between these:

when you cast [a] spell [...] that targets only one creature, you can have it target a second creature.

When you cast a [...] cantrip that [...] targets only one creature, the spell can instead target two creatures.

And so, those particular questions are identical.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .