There are a few spells available to the sorcerer where the rules of twinned spell come into question, Specifically the caveat "To be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level." The examples given are rather clear, but doesn't clearly cover spells that target a single entity, but can have an AOE (e.g. Ice Knife) I have a player who has a twinned spell build.
My thought is that’s an edge case. The DM should make a ruling on that spell and just deal with it since it’s rare. In my game that I’m running I’d let that work, but that’s my game.
RAW, any spell with an AoE is ineligible. If I were DM, I might make exceptions if the spell isn't going to hit additional targets even if it could.
Another exception I would make is chaos bolt, both because it's a fun spell and because it's almost always worse than chromatic orb, though I'd say that no target can be hit multiple times even if both bolts chain.
I believe that the relevant section of the rules is:
To be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level.
This doesn't mean target in a manner that might be familiar to M:tG players - I suspect it would be more easily understood if it said, "effect more than one creature"
RAW, Twinned Spell can apply to any spell where you target an individual, regardless of secondary effects to other creatures.
To help with clarity, I will address the two examples given in this thread:
Ice Knife - Twinned Spell does apply, as this is the targeting of the spell "You create a shard of ice and fling it at one creature within range." In addition, the secondary effect states " The target and each creature within 5 feet"; this means any other creatures affected are not THE target, they are collateral damage.
Chaos Bolt - "You hurl an undulating, warbling mass of chaotic energy at one creature in range." Again, it specifies only one creature for the target. "If you roll the same number on both d8s, the chaotic energy leaps from the target to a different creature of your choice within 30 feet of it. Make a new attack roll against the new target, and make a new damage roll, which could cause the chaotic energy to leap again.
A creature can be targeted only once by each casting of this spell." As Lunali stated, each creature can only be struck by a single bolt, as Twinned Spell allows you to target a second creature, not cast the spell twice.
For future reference, to determine if a spell is eligible to be twinned, just look for either "one creature", "single creature", or some variation of these (such as saying beast or undead instead of creature) within the first rule sentence.
As to the ruling by Jeremy Crawford, I would suggest you ignore that ruling, given that it was based on whether a spell affects more than one creature, when the feature in question explicitly states "targets" not "affects". (I will not discuss Jeremy Crawford rulings in general within this thread, so if anyone wants to discuss them in detail, I will do so only in a dedicated thread)
WotC really needs to be clearer with their rules language in 5e. You would never guess it was made by the same company that made MTG (which has extremely detailed rules).
It is clearly not rules as intended, but RAW Journer is right. The rules don't specify that creatures affected by a spell are targets of the spell. Spell target rules say that AOE spells target the point of origin, AOE spell rules say the point of origin can be a creature. Ice knife targets 1 creature as both a range attack target and as an AOE point of origin.
Maybe if that sage advice had been put in the compendium, but it isn't. Twinned spell needs an errata if this is not intended (which I suspect it isn't).
It is clearly not rules as intended, but RAW Journer is right. The rules don't specify that creatures affected by a spell are targets of the spell.
The rules never give a definition for what it means to be the target of a spell. It's not a rules term; it's always being used in the normal dictionary sense. "Target" just happens to be a good catch-all word for "apply [the spell's effect] to."
While the rules never give a singular definition for what constitutes a target, they do say what can be targeted: a point, a creature, an object, or an area.
Given that, what matters is which is referenced as THE target of an effect, action, feature, or spell.
Considering the above, the idea that the target is "whatever is affected" must be wrong, as that idea allows for too broad a selection of scenarios.
For instance, let's say you use a spell to attack 1 creature with fire, but that creature is standing in something flammable, as are 3 others. You know they will also be affected by the fire, but the spell was only aimed at the 1 creature. Are they still targets of the spell, even inadvertently? If not, how does a secondary effect without the spell differ from a secondary effect from it? Given that in both cases, you are only directly targeting 1 creature, even though you are indirectly targeting more.
It is clearly not rules as intended, but RAW Journer is right. The rules don't specify that creatures affected by a spell are targets of the spell.
The rules never give a definition for what it means to be the target of a spell. It's not a rules term; it's always being used in the normal dictionary sense. "Target" just happens to be a good catch-all word for "apply [the spell's effect] to."
Well that's the problem. It is not a defined rules term, but it is the term used in the rules that is causing this confusion.
And nowhere in the rules is a creature that gets affected by an AOE effect revered to as a target. The rules do specifically state that the point of origin is target of an AOE spell. Ergo, an AOE spell does not target multiple creatures.
This is why I said we need clear rules language. So that a spell or feature can be guaranteed to actually say what it is supposed to say. Instead of being slightly ambiguous and inconsistent, so that the more literally you read the rule, the less it behaves how it was intended.
While the rules never give a singular definition for what constitutes a target, they do say what can be targeted: a point, a creature, an object, or an area. Given that, what matters is which is referenced as THE target of an effect, action, feature, or spell.
Nope. For starters, that's still not a definition, and you've left out the context for that sentence:
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).
The bit about creatures, objects, or points is talking about targets you pick. When you fireball a bunch of goblins, the target you pick is the point in space, but you're definitely intending to fireball the goblins. And what do you know, Fireball refers to the things caught in the blast as targets.
In fact, the very same spellcasting chapter says you can target yourself by including yourself in an area of effect for a spell you cast.
Targeting Yourself
... If you are in the area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself.
How is that possible if target means "something you choose"?
Well that's the problem. It is not a defined rules term, but it is the term used in the rules that is causing this confusion.
I mean, I agree it could've been much clearer, and I'd love to see it clarified in a future edition. But at the same time it's something that only comes up with select few abilities and they've been clarified a million times by the rules guy himself. There's even a whole podcast episode about it. And it's also pretty obvious that the intent of Twinned Spell is to make a spell go from affecting 1 creature to 2.
Since the intent ought to be clear and the information for how it's supposed to work is readily available and they're not gonna do a full rewrite of the targeting section in errata, trying to insist something like Ice Knife should be twinnable because the Player's Handbook was kinda vague really feels like the bad kind of rules lawyering to me.
"Targeted" is colloquially equivalent to "Affected".
We all know the rules could be written more eloquently, but honestly making comparisons to MTG levels of detail is a bit much. WoTC has a far greater interest in MTG rules minutia because the core design of the game, and all the frequent sponsored events/tournaments, demands it.
Shoehorning is bad. Ice Knife is not eligible for Twinned Spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
First, I did say the rules never give a definition, only a list of what can be targeted, but that still tells us what we need to know.
Second, as you highlighted, the spell tells you what can be targeted, by saying what you can aim that spell at, in the case of Fireball, you aim for "a point you choose within range", which means that point is your target (the presence or lack thereof of creatures does not matter). Further, there is a very critical reason why just being affected does not constitute being targeted:
PHB, page 204 "A Clear Path to the Target"
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
As per the rule above, you cannot target something without a clear path, so I present the following scenario to make targeting clear:
You are in a room, standing in the doorway ahead of you is an enemy, out of sight to either side (and thus not able to be targeted) is another enemy. You use a spell to attack the enemy in the doorway, and you choose Ice Knife to ensure they get hurt (remember, you dont know any other enemies are present). When you attack, the target is affected by the secondary explosion, as are the enemies next to them (which you are still unaware of). By the rules of targeting, the enemies on either side cannot be targets, because you dont have a clear path to them.
Now under the rules, if there is a second creature you have a clear path to, you could use Twinned Spell to also attack that creature with Ice Knife, as the primary feature only targets a single creature. But, under Crawford's interpretation, even though the primary feature of Ice Knife only targets 1 creature, and you were unaware of the others, you could not use Twinned Spell in this case, which is clearly wrong.
To sum up, to target something: 1- you must have a clear path to it 2- it must be a creature, or an object, or a point
For Twinned Spell to apply: 1- the spell cannot have range of self 2- it cannot be able to target more than 1 creature at current spell level (which means you can target more than 1 point or object)
If WOTC releases an errata to Twinned Spell to change the wording from "target" to "affect", then it would work as Crawford suggested, so long as it is worded carefully enough to be clear that it applies only directly from the spell, and not incidental effects (as I stated about the fire and flammable materials).
@Sigred I do point out, in Ice Knife, it does say about the explosion: "The target and each creature within 5 feet". As it does explicitly say "target and each creature", that clearly indicates that just being affected DOES NOT make you a target.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
@Sigred A ruling from Sage Advice does not apply if it clearly is in conflict with the established rules.
Again: In Ice Knife, it does say about the explosion: "The target and each creature within 5 feet". As it clearly specifies that each creature within 5 feet is separate from the target, then the target of the spell is who it is fired at, not who is affected by the explosion. Which means, again, that just being affected DOES NOT make you a target.
Second, as you highlighted, the spell tells you what can be targeted, by saying what you can aim that spell at, in the case of Fireball, you aim for "a point you choose within range", which means that point is your target (the presence or lack thereof of creatures does not matter).
The point is the target you choose. That doesn't imply it's the only target. Unless you can explain to me why Fireball refers to the things that take the damage as targets, this is not a counterargument.
Further, there is a very critical reason why just being affected does not constitute being targeted:
PHB, page 204 "A Clear Path to the Target"
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
As per the rule above, you cannot target something without a clear path...
Actually, you can.
Total Cover
A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.
This text clearly shows:
You can in fact target things behind total cover.
The concept of "targeting directly" is being contrasted with targeting something by including it in an area of effect.
That bit I quoted earlier from the Targeting Yourself section isn't a fluke or an error.
Applying a spell's effect by including something in the spell's area is a form of targeting.
@InquisitiveCoder What you quoted actually indicates a conflict with general rules, not a support of the claim that anything affected is a target:
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.
As stated above, one general rule says you must have a clear path to something to target it, while another general rule says no clear path is needed if you are using something with an area of effect. Technically, these 2 rules are in conflict, and as such, there are 2 options: 1- ignore both rules (they cancel each other out), 2- obey the first rule to appear in the text (whichever rule comes first). Part of the problem here comes from the fact that the section on cover is all about combat, and exclusively uses the term "target" rather than "something", while the section on spellcasting is more open to incidental effects. Either way, given that there is a conflict, it is clear that there was a lack of review prior to publication, and an errata is needed on the subject of targeting and being affected.
Also, the section about targeting yourself says you can target yourself, not that you do, which if anything, indicates that being in an area of effect does not automatically make you a target.
As stated above, one general rule says you must have a clear path to something to target it, while another general rule says no clear path is needed if you are using something with an area of effect. Technically, these 2 rules are in conflict
The second rule is more specifically about spells with an area of effects. Specifics trumps general.
Part of the problem here comes from the fact that the section on cover is all about combat, and exclusively uses the term "target" rather than "something", while the section on spellcasting is more open to incidental effects. Either way, given that there is a conflict, it is clear that there was a lack of review prior to publication, and an errata is needed on the subject of targeting and being affected.
The intent (and RAW) is pretty clear thanks to the quote InquisitiveCoder gave, a target is someone affected by the spell, and Twinned Spell specifies that "to be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level."
For the specific of Ice Knife, it's easy, you choose a single target that gets 1d10 damage (with an attack roll) and the spell then targets the initial target plus everyone within 5ft of them for 2d6 (with a saving throw). Because of that secondary effect, the spell does target more than a single creature, and is not eligible to Ice Knife.
Journer, the central premise of your argument is now:
Without regard to whether you could target/affect more than one creature with a spell, choosing to only target/affect a single creature ought to make the spell eligible for Twinned Spell Metamagic.
I will not comment on what I think about this premise because it is completely irrelevant.
Twinned Spell Metamagic does not care about what you choose to do. If the spell could target/affect more than a single creature (whether you actually do or not), the spell is ineligible to be used with the Twinned Spell Metamagic feature. The argument is over.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
@ClementP Except, if you are right that the spellcasting rules trump the combat rules, then Twinned Spell can be used with Ice Knife, as it is the spellcasting rules that say you cannot target something behind total cover, which means that with Ice Knife, the only target is the creature that might get 1d10 damage, because the other creatures can be behind cover, and because as I have listed twice above, the explosion from Ice Knife explicitly says: "The target and each creature within 5 feet". The explosion can affect the target, but it can also affect other creatures, creatures which are not the target.
I think it should be clear for Ice Knife that not everything affected is a target; and thus only that which is the direct target (creature, object, or point) matters to Twinned Spell, not secondary effects.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There are a few spells available to the sorcerer where the rules of twinned spell come into question, Specifically the caveat "To be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level." The examples given are rather clear, but doesn't clearly cover spells that target a single entity, but can have an AOE (e.g. Ice Knife) I have a player who has a twinned spell build.
My thought is that’s an edge case. The DM should make a ruling on that spell and just deal with it since it’s rare. In my game that I’m running I’d let that work, but that’s my game.
Professional computer geek
RAW, any spell with an AoE is ineligible. If I were DM, I might make exceptions if the spell isn't going to hit additional targets even if it could.
Another exception I would make is chaos bolt, both because it's a fun spell and because it's almost always worse than chromatic orb, though I'd say that no target can be hit multiple times even if both bolts chain.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersYou may find this helpful:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/04/11/can-i-use-twinned-spell-on-ice-knife/
I believe that the relevant section of the rules is:
This doesn't mean target in a manner that might be familiar to M:tG players - I suspect it would be more easily understood if it said, "effect more than one creature"
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
RAW, Twinned Spell can apply to any spell where you target an individual, regardless of secondary effects to other creatures.
To help with clarity, I will address the two examples given in this thread:
Ice Knife - Twinned Spell does apply, as this is the targeting of the spell "You create a shard of ice and fling it at one creature within range." In addition, the secondary effect states " The target and each creature within 5 feet"; this means any other creatures affected are not THE target, they are collateral damage.
Chaos Bolt - "You hurl an undulating, warbling mass of chaotic energy at one creature in range." Again, it specifies only one creature for the target.
"If you roll the same number on both d8s, the chaotic energy leaps from the target to a different creature of your choice within 30 feet of it. Make a new attack roll against the new target, and make a new damage roll, which could cause the chaotic energy to leap again.
A creature can be targeted only once by each casting of this spell." As Lunali stated, each creature can only be struck by a single bolt, as Twinned Spell allows you to target a second creature, not cast the spell twice.
For future reference, to determine if a spell is eligible to be twinned, just look for either "one creature", "single creature", or some variation of these (such as saying beast or undead instead of creature) within the first rule sentence.
As to the ruling by Jeremy Crawford, I would suggest you ignore that ruling, given that it was based on whether a spell affects more than one creature, when the feature in question explicitly states "targets" not "affects". (I will not discuss Jeremy Crawford rulings in general within this thread, so if anyone wants to discuss them in detail, I will do so only in a dedicated thread)
WotC really needs to be clearer with their rules language in 5e. You would never guess it was made by the same company that made MTG (which has extremely detailed rules).
It is clearly not rules as intended, but RAW Journer is right. The rules don't specify that creatures affected by a spell are targets of the spell. Spell target rules say that AOE spells target the point of origin, AOE spell rules say the point of origin can be a creature. Ice knife targets 1 creature as both a range attack target and as an AOE point of origin.
Maybe if that sage advice had been put in the compendium, but it isn't. Twinned spell needs an errata if this is not intended (which I suspect it isn't).
The rules never give a definition for what it means to be the target of a spell. It's not a rules term; it's always being used in the normal dictionary sense. "Target" just happens to be a good catch-all word for "apply [the spell's effect] to."
The Forum Infestation (TM)
While the rules never give a singular definition for what constitutes a target, they do say what can be targeted: a point, a creature, an object, or an area.
Given that, what matters is which is referenced as THE target of an effect, action, feature, or spell.
Considering the above, the idea that the target is "whatever is affected" must be wrong, as that idea allows for too broad a selection of scenarios.
For instance, let's say you use a spell to attack 1 creature with fire, but that creature is standing in something flammable, as are 3 others. You know they will also be affected by the fire, but the spell was only aimed at the 1 creature. Are they still targets of the spell, even inadvertently? If not, how does a secondary effect without the spell differ from a secondary effect from it? Given that in both cases, you are only directly targeting 1 creature, even though you are indirectly targeting more.
Well that's the problem. It is not a defined rules term, but it is the term used in the rules that is causing this confusion.
And nowhere in the rules is a creature that gets affected by an AOE effect revered to as a target. The rules do specifically state that the point of origin is target of an AOE spell. Ergo, an AOE spell does not target multiple creatures.
This is why I said we need clear rules language. So that a spell or feature can be guaranteed to actually say what it is supposed to say. Instead of being slightly ambiguous and inconsistent, so that the more literally you read the rule, the less it behaves how it was intended.
Nope. For starters, that's still not a definition, and you've left out the context for that sentence:
The bit about creatures, objects, or points is talking about targets you pick. When you fireball a bunch of goblins, the target you pick is the point in space, but you're definitely intending to fireball the goblins. And what do you know, Fireball refers to the things caught in the blast as targets.
In fact, the very same spellcasting chapter says you can target yourself by including yourself in an area of effect for a spell you cast.
How is that possible if target means "something you choose"?
Clearly that definition isn't working.
I mean, I agree it could've been much clearer, and I'd love to see it clarified in a future edition. But at the same time it's something that only comes up with select few abilities and they've been clarified a million times by the rules guy himself. There's even a whole podcast episode about it. And it's also pretty obvious that the intent of Twinned Spell is to make a spell go from affecting 1 creature to 2.
Since the intent ought to be clear and the information for how it's supposed to work is readily available and they're not gonna do a full rewrite of the targeting section in errata, trying to insist something like Ice Knife should be twinnable because the Player's Handbook was kinda vague really feels like the bad kind of rules lawyering to me.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
"Targeted" is colloquially equivalent to "Affected".
We all know the rules could be written more eloquently, but honestly making comparisons to MTG levels of detail is a bit much. WoTC has a far greater interest in MTG rules minutia because the core design of the game, and all the frequent sponsored events/tournaments, demands it.
Shoehorning is bad. Ice Knife is not eligible for Twinned Spell.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
First, I did say the rules never give a definition, only a list of what can be targeted, but that still tells us what we need to know.
Second, as you highlighted, the spell tells you what can be targeted, by saying what you can aim that spell at, in the case of Fireball, you aim for "a point you choose within range", which means that point is your target (the presence or lack thereof of creatures does not matter). Further, there is a very critical reason why just being affected does not constitute being targeted:
PHB, page 204 "A Clear Path to the Target"
As per the rule above, you cannot target something without a clear path, so I present the following scenario to make targeting clear:
You are in a room, standing in the doorway ahead of you is an enemy, out of sight to either side (and thus not able to be targeted) is another enemy. You use a spell to attack the enemy in the doorway, and you choose Ice Knife to ensure they get hurt (remember, you dont know any other enemies are present). When you attack, the target is affected by the secondary explosion, as are the enemies next to them (which you are still unaware of). By the rules of targeting, the enemies on either side cannot be targets, because you dont have a clear path to them.
Now under the rules, if there is a second creature you have a clear path to, you could use Twinned Spell to also attack that creature with Ice Knife, as the primary feature only targets a single creature. But, under Crawford's interpretation, even though the primary feature of Ice Knife only targets 1 creature, and you were unaware of the others, you could not use Twinned Spell in this case, which is clearly wrong.
To sum up, to target something:
1- you must have a clear path to it
2- it must be a creature, or an object, or a point
For Twinned Spell to apply:
1- the spell cannot have range of self
2- it cannot be able to target more than 1 creature at current spell level (which means you can target more than 1 point or object)
If WOTC releases an errata to Twinned Spell to change the wording from "target" to "affect", then it would work as Crawford suggested, so long as it is worded carefully enough to be clear that it applies only directly from the spell, and not incidental effects (as I stated about the fire and flammable materials).
@Sigred I do point out, in Ice Knife, it does say about the explosion: "The target and each creature within 5 feet". As it does explicitly say "target and each creature", that clearly indicates that just being affected DOES NOT make you a target.
Yeah, it actually does. That's not even difficult logic.
Here's another Sage Advice coming to the same conclusion with more detail, and another thread from this forum.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
@Sigred A ruling from Sage Advice does not apply if it clearly is in conflict with the established rules.
Again: In Ice Knife, it does say about the explosion: "The target and each creature within 5 feet". As it clearly specifies that each creature within 5 feet is separate from the target, then the target of the spell is who it is fired at, not who is affected by the explosion. Which means, again, that just being affected DOES NOT make you a target.
The point is the target you choose. That doesn't imply it's the only target. Unless you can explain to me why Fireball refers to the things that take the damage as targets, this is not a counterargument.
Actually, you can.
This text clearly shows:
Applying a spell's effect by including something in the spell's area is a form of targeting.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
@InquisitiveCoder What you quoted actually indicates a conflict with general rules, not a support of the claim that anything affected is a target:
As stated above, one general rule says you must have a clear path to something to target it, while another general rule says no clear path is needed if you are using something with an area of effect. Technically, these 2 rules are in conflict, and as such, there are 2 options: 1- ignore both rules (they cancel each other out), 2- obey the first rule to appear in the text (whichever rule comes first). Part of the problem here comes from the fact that the section on cover is all about combat, and exclusively uses the term "target" rather than "something", while the section on spellcasting is more open to incidental effects. Either way, given that there is a conflict, it is clear that there was a lack of review prior to publication, and an errata is needed on the subject of targeting and being affected.
Also, the section about targeting yourself says you can target yourself, not that you do, which if anything, indicates that being in an area of effect does not automatically make you a target.
The second rule is more specifically about spells with an area of effects. Specifics trumps general.
The intent (and RAW) is pretty clear thanks to the quote InquisitiveCoder gave, a target is someone affected by the spell, and Twinned Spell specifies that "to be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level."
For the specific of Ice Knife, it's easy, you choose a single target that gets 1d10 damage (with an attack roll) and the spell then targets the initial target plus everyone within 5ft of them for 2d6 (with a saving throw). Because of that secondary effect, the spell does target more than a single creature, and is not eligible to Ice Knife.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
Journer, the central premise of your argument is now:
I will not comment on what I think about this premise because it is completely irrelevant.
Twinned Spell Metamagic does not care about what you choose to do. If the spell could target/affect more than a single creature (whether you actually do or not), the spell is ineligible to be used with the Twinned Spell Metamagic feature. The argument is over.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
@ClementP Except, if you are right that the spellcasting rules trump the combat rules, then Twinned Spell can be used with Ice Knife, as it is the spellcasting rules that say you cannot target something behind total cover, which means that with Ice Knife, the only target is the creature that might get 1d10 damage, because the other creatures can be behind cover, and because as I have listed twice above, the explosion from Ice Knife explicitly says: "The target and each creature within 5 feet". The explosion can affect the target, but it can also affect other creatures, creatures which are not the target.
I think it should be clear for Ice Knife that not everything affected is a target; and thus only that which is the direct target (creature, object, or point) matters to Twinned Spell, not secondary effects.