Reaper applies to Twinned Spell

My reply is directed to all of the previously posted messages on this specific forum page.

When judging whether or not 2014 Twinned Spell and Reaper react to each other in a way that provokes redundancy, you must take into consideration the logic of each word leading up to the effect's completion.

For reference, below are listed the 2014 Twinned Spell and Reaper metamagic and Subclass feature.

From this point forward, Twinned Spell will now be abbreviated as "TS."

REAPER:

At 1st level, the cleric learns one necromancy cantrip of his or her choice from any spell list. When the cleric casts a necromancy cantrip that normally targets only one creature, the spell can instead target two creatures within range and within 5 feet of each other.

TWINNED SPELL:

When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn't have a range of self, you can spend a number of sorcery points equal to the spell's level to target a second creature in range with the same spell (1 sorcery point if the spell is a cantrip).

To be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell's current level. For example, magic missile and scorching ray aren't eligible, but ray of frost and chromatic orb are.

One must consider how each feature/metamagic interacts on its own apart from the clutter that comes with introducing Reaper into the argument without laying the blocks of logic first. Both must be understood independently before attempting to understand both interdependently.

We will begin by dissecting TS.

THOUGHT 1: TWINNED SPELL

Thought 1a (the first part of the first sentence) indicates the timing of the spell, which is, "When you cast a spell..." This is extremely straightforward; this spell takes its affect immediately when you cast the spell.

Also, note the word "spell" used in this phrase. Anything that is defined in some way as a "spell" is the trigger that, when cast, provokes the effect of TS.

Thought 1b and 1c indicate what the spell itself must affect or not affect when cast in order for the effect of TS to take place. This says very plainly that the effect takes place when a spell "targets only one creature" and "doesn't have a range of self..." It is clear that the effect of TS applies to spells which, by definition, target only one creature and does not target self.

Also, note the word "creature" used in this phrase. Anything that is defined in some way as a "creature" is the trigger that, when cast, provokes the effect of TS.

Thoughts 1d, 1e, and 1f determine the metrics by which TS operates and doesn't actively contribute to the TS's effect. Those thoughts are: "you can spend," "a number of sorcery points," "equal to the spell's level..."

Thought 1g begins detailing the effect TS brings about by saying "to target a second creature..." That indicates TS's effects reach only two targets.

Thought 1h gives more limitations on the effect of TS; "in range with the same spell..." 

This thought is partly what incites the above controversy because there are two definitions of "same spell" in this thought. The two options are: "'same spell' means this refers to the exact same spell as it is defined on the datasheet" and "'same spell' indicates that the spell which is being cast is having its range used to measure to another creature."

Thought 1i clarifies this Controversy 1 arising from Thought 1h.

"(1 sorcery point if the spell is a cantrip)." The reason this thought gives clarity as to which definition of the phrase "same spell" is the intended definition is that it provides context only to indicate the nature of the spell itself on the datasheet (i.e. cantrip is the spell being cast). What is not supported by this thought is that the range is being measured from the player character to a creature a second time for the spell which is not yet complete; thus, effectively changing the spell's effect to now reach two targets as a double-target spell. If this thought was referring to a change in mode, then it would address the spell's effect as a new effect, but instead it addresses the spell's datasheet to measure the range as you would normally with the spell.

In short, the spell itself is not being changed to affect two targets now as if it were a new spell, but it affects two targets as two single-target spells, keeping the original definition seen on the datasheet.

THOUGHT 2: TWINNED SPELL

Thoughts 2a, 2b, and 2c get into the second controversy.

2a "To be eligible," 2b "a spell must be incapable," 2c "of targeting more than one creature..."

Thought 2a simply sets the stage for the next thought, but Thought 2b is where the Controversy 2 arises. We see a similar problem as Controversy 1, but instead of the the confusion about the word "same spell," it is a confusion over the word "spell" and how it interacts with the word "incapable." When we bring Thought 2b and 2c together, we set the stage for Controversy 2. There are two ways to interpret the word "spell" and how it interacts with the word "incapable."

1. The "spell" being processed must be incapable of targeting more than one creature as pertains to its definition on its datasheet.

2. The "spell" being processed must never be capable of targeting more than one creature INCLUDING the introduction of other effects coinciding the existing effects inside the datasheet.

There is clarity in which of the two above statements are correct, and the answer lies in the definition of "spell" we previously determined: "the spell itself is not being changed..."

If the spell were to be changed to mean that of the second interpretation, then that would indicate any spell which was capable of being affected by another effect within the entire realm of Dungeons & Dragons to target two creatures would render it "capable;" thus, losing the status of being "incapable." This is a fallacy because TS would be unable to work independently as it's own metamagic effect, and there is no indicator that TS is dependent on any outside effect. This would turn TS into a new metamagic that cannot be paired with certain cantrips because of the existence of another effect that can change the spell's characteristic from "incapable" (of targeting more than one creature) to "capable."

In short, including outside effects to influence TS means that, even if said conflicting effects never appear in an entire D&D campaign, they still affect how TS is used, and the way in which it is affected is not on the datasheet. This would make a new interaction with the catrip Toll the Dead and all other necromancy cantrips so that no necromancy cantrips can be used conjunctively with TS.

If you allow for this change to be made to TS, it is first and foremost not on the datasheet, and secondly, it MUST be used as a dependent metamagic and cannot ever be used with necromancy spells, otherwise you will have constructed for yourself an inconsistent rule that is existent only in the presence of another conflicting effect; not considering that you have made it into a dependent metamagic and not an independent metamagic.

Thought 2d simply enlarges the parameters TS is allowed to operate in. This contradicts interpretation that "the "spell" being processed must never be capable of targeting more than one creature INCLUDING the introduction of other effects coinciding the existing effects inside the datasheet," because it allows for spells which are currently single-target but change in definition to a multi-target spell to still be used. These spells that would "level up" from an "incapable" spell to a "capable" spell would not be allowed to be used either except for that the parameters allow for the said spell to be used, so, even if a spell can somehow affect multiple targets dependent on circumtances outside of the spell's datasheet and TS's datasheet, then TS and that spell work independently from such effects. 

THOUGHT 3: TWINNED SPELL

I'm not going to dissect the next thought because it very easily proves everything that was previously stated to be true in this post, but it is still worth mentioning.

"For example, magic missile and scorching ray aren't eligible, but ray of frost and chromatic orb are."

If you look at the datasheets above, they function effectively the same as any of the single-target necromancy cantrips which are being debated. This proves that each spell is supposed to be taken for what it is on its datasheet, not for what it can be theorized to be in conjunction with another effect unless otherwise stated on the datasheet. There are cases where obscure rules or interactions appear and are not immediately clear as to how they are to be interpreted, but, by establishing logic blocks, these interactions are solvable.

THOUGHT 1: REAPER

"At 1st level, the cleric learns one necromancy cantrip of his or her choice from any spell list." This thought does functionally nothing in the controversy and will not be necessary to come to a logical conclusion.

THOUGHT 2: REAPER

Thought 2a begins setting when the effect takes place. This is "When the cleric casts..." Thought 2b follows immediately describing what is being cast, "a necromancy cantrip..."

This means that this effect only works on necromancy cantrips and it happens immediately when the cleric casts it.

Thought 2c might be the biggest controversy to be discovered thus far: "that normally targets only one creature..."

Controversy 3 is also very easy to close because Thought 2c is incredibly clear. If a player uses a spell (necrotic cantrip that NORMALLY targets only one creature, then it can be used with the effect of Reaper. The datasheet for Reaper specifically states that if a spell (necrotic cantrip) normally targets only one creature, it is eligible to be used by Reaper. The word "normal" being used here adds concisement to the execution of the Reaper feature. It allows for Reaper to be used alongside other effects that can change the circumstances in which the spell is being cast.

Thought 2d and 2e introduces the word "instead;" "the spell can instead target two creatures..." As previously determined in this post, the spell itself is not changing in its meaning. The effect being applied is not a new spell, but the feature, Reaper. The spell is exactly the same as it before, but it is Reaper that is applying its own effect independent of the spell. Thought 2f is not necessary to dissect either as it does not contribute to the controversies. 

WORKING INTERDEPENDENTLY 

When the spell is cast, both TS and Reaper detonate. TS applies the spell to a second target with its own special effect while Reaper applies the spell to a second target using its own special effect. The spell is still the same spell as is shown on the datasheet; it is the metamagic and subclass feature that take their effect as independent entities as previously proven. When playing these effects and spells at face value for exactly what it says on the datasheets, they can work as their own independent entities (as they do not have conjoining datasheets nor indicate that they are not compatible with each other). If you begin to take these effects out of their independence and start blending them with other effects, you are changing the actual entity and causing it to function incorrectly. These effects do stack with each other. If you skipped to the end after 30 seconds, you need to get off TikTok and touch grass because you have no attention span. If you made it to the end, thank you for reading.

God bless.