I'd agree. The two things that generally prevent a spell from being twinned are that it can't already target/affect multiple creatures, and that it can't be designed to target yourself, i.e. the twinned spell should be hitting two different targets and never affecting the same creature twice (including yourself). Twinning Life Transference would (probably?) have the effect of taking your own hit points twice, which breaks the second rule of Twinned spells, and the fact that it already affects both yourself and another creature breaks the first rule.
Life transfer has a range different than "Self" and targets only one creature to heal no matter the level its casted. And thus should be twinnable.
RAW the spell makes the caster target a creature and, as part of the cost, damages the caster. But the caster isn't a target of the spell, he is part of the cost. This is clear in the conditions of the healing. If the caster doesn't receive any dmg, then the spell doesn't heal anything. Another possible consequence of considering the caster as part of the targeting would be that the caster is also subject of the effect of the spell (namely, he should be healed by twice the dmg he just received), making the spell incredible powerful.
Whats more, the RAI is pretty clear. The description of the spell clearly states that effect of the spell is to heal the target, while the caster pays with his life for it.
If a spell damages you, it's targeting you. The caster is just as much a target of the spell as the creature receiving the healing. The number of chosen targets is irrelevant. Dragon's Breath is another example of a spell that requires you to choose one creature, but has the potential to target many others through the area of effect the chosen creature can create.
I'm going to have to echo the "it can be twinned" sentiment for no other reason than the first line of the spell:
You sacrifice some of your health to mend another creature's injuries.
With that bit right there I would offer an analogy to any material component to a spell. Find Familiar states it's components must be consumed by a fire in a brass brazier. Gate talks about a diamond worth 5,000 gp and we are of the understanding it's consumed by the spell. Personally, my HP has a cost greater than a 5,000 gp diamond, since without my HP, I'm dead.
Life transfer has a range different than "Self" and targets only one creature to heal no matter the level its casted. And thus should be twinnable...
I don't agree with you here. Life Transference only asks you to choose one target, but it clearly has two targets - the chosen creature and yourself. You don't have to choose or aim something at a creature for it to be a target of a spell. As an example I ask you who is the target of the Shield spell? Nothing in the description of the spell or the rules of spellcasting actually answers that question, but we all know that the target is yourself because you are directly affected by the spell. Likewise you are a target of Life Transference because it actively injures you.
The written restrictions of Twinned Spell is to indicate that after twinning the spell should affect exactly two creatures, and should never affect the same creature twice (including yourself). Twinning Life Transference would have the effect of injuring you twice - which is counter to the properties of Twinned Spell.
In the case of the mighty Crawford's tweet; he's speaking of spells that are doing something to another creature or creatures. It affects 1 or more creatures by causing damage. If more than one creature can be damaged you can't twin.
Life transfer does not affect more than 1 creature, only 1 creature is being healed. The healing is the result of casting the spell. Result is what happens when you're done with the actions necessary to get to the effect. The actions of casting a spell are words, wiggling fingers, and using spell components/focus. As well there's a nuance to the wording here that's being missed, and that is the willingness that indicates it's not an effect, it's a requirement.
You lose life equal to the amount of health given to the player you want to heal. That kind of wording makes it so that there is no way to stop the life loss from happening, thus it is an effect of casting the spell. There is no way to stop the effect from happening, there is automatically a transference of health.
You sacrifice health equal to the amount of health given to the player you want to heal. That kind of wording makes it a choice, if you do not sacrifice the health then the player receives none. A choice does not make it an effect, it makes it a part of the V, S, M components to a spell.
...You sacrifice health equal to the amount of health given to the player you want to heal. That kind of wording makes it a choice, if you do not sacrifice the health then the player receives none. A choice does not make it an effect, it makes it a part of the V, S, M components to a spell.
But it doesn't though. It makes it similar to a component, in that it must be given and cannot be avoided, but it's not a component. If it were part of the VSM it would be written in with the materials. Any DM is free to allow Life Transference to be twinned, just as they are free to allow any spell to be twinned because they are running the game, but in truth it is a spell that affects two creatures so cannot be twinned. This is not a healing spell with some sort of flesh material component, it is just a reverse Vampiric Touch.
A choice does not make it an effect, it makes it a part of the V, S, M components to a spell.
No. If the damage were a component, it'd be listed as a component. The damage is an effect of casting the spell. You cast the spell successfully, then you take damage and heal your chosen target.
Sayiong that the spell targets yourself is like saying fireball is targeting you just because your in the blast radius, which is massive BS. I think it can be twinned. because the spell is drawing life from your body as you cast it, Ie part of the compnant of the spell. not targeting yourself. otherwise it would have a target selection of Self Like other spells. Look at the spell Blur For example it has no designation that your 'tartgeting' yourself. the spell simply takes effect. And bur has a target of :self. Life transferance doesnt, hince the damage to oneself is a component not a target.
Sayiong that the spell targets yourself is like saying fireball is targeting you just because your in the blast radius (1), which is massive BS. I think it can be twinned. because the spell is drawing life from your body as you cast it, Ie part of the compnant of the spell (2). not targeting yourself (3). otherwise it would have a target selection of Self Like other spells. Look at the spell Blur For example it has no designation that your 'tartgeting' yourself. the spell simply takes effect. And bur has a target of :self. Life transferance doesnt, hince the damage to oneself is a component not a target.
Except that is exactly what happens. Any creature/object affected within the area of a spell is a target of the spell.
It is not a component of the spell. The spell has a Verbal and Somatic component. These have no bearing on the effect of the spell, nor do they have any interaction with the descriptive text of the spell. They are mechanically just check-boxes for determining if you can even cast the spell.
Yes, you are an explicit target of the spell. The spell is affecting you by reducing your HP, and it is affecting the primary target by restoring their HP. The spell has two targets: yourself, and someone else.
Here is the full description of Twinned Spell:
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.
Life Transference targets two creatures, so it is not eligible for Twinned Spell. Fireball--regardless of whether it does only target one creature in any specific instance--has the capability of targeting more than one creature, so it is not eligible either.
Here is an entry from the Sage Advice Compendium (the official one) further explaining what makes a spell ineligible for TS:
Can my sorcerer use Twinned Spell to affect a particular spell?
is incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level
If you know this rule yet are still unsure whether a particular spell qualifies for Twinned Spell, consult with your DM, who has the final say. If the two of you are curious about our design intent, here is the list of things that disqualify a spell for us:
The spell has a range of self.
The spell can target an object.
The spell allows you to choose more than one creature to be affected by it, particularly at the level you’re casting the spell. Some spells increase their number of potential targets when you cast them at a higher level.
The spell can force more than one creature to make a saving throw before the spell’s duration expires.
The spell lets you make a roll of any kind that can affect more than one creature before the spell’s duration expires
Two creatures affected: yourself, and your primary target. That clearly disqualifies it, but you can also look to the last bullet for additional confirmation--your roll affects two creatures.
And here's an official podcast where Jeremy Crawford provides more insight into what counts as the target of a 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.
This spell can be twinned nothing says you target yourself. That’s like saying if you cast clone and twin it when you use the component for your skin as it’s part of yourself that it targets two creatures. That’s also like saying spells like create Magen which takes away your hit points can’t be twinned. Nothing on the spell applies you as a target. Your hit points or your body are a components to the spell.
and here’s sage advice look at the tweet he responded to asking if you are targeted. He said no you are healing another creature. This means you are NOT targeted by this spell
Super late, but worth bringing up because people still google this question:
Twinned Spell, by designer intent (namely, Jeremy's intent... more on that later) will not work with Life Transference as outlined by the Sage Advice Compendium, which contains actual rulings (among other things). Before that Sage Advice, it was, by RAW, twinnable. Because Jeremy's tweets, and those of any other designer, mean absolutely *nothing* for how the rules in the game work, as pointed out *in* the Sage Advice Compendium (this was likely done because designers were contradicting each other and some, like jeremy for example, were being very inconsistent with the actual text of the book). As RAW, the Target of a spell is who you designate as a target, not just who's "affected" by it. The "anyone affected in the spell's AOE" bit is for AOE spells and is not found elsewhere in the rules for spells; LT is not an AOE spell. Additionally, LT may "affect" the caster in that the caster loses HP to allow another to regain HP, but by that logic any and all concentration spells cannot be twinned because regardless of the effect they have on the *designated target*, they "affect" the caster by occupying their concentration. And whether one is concentrating on a spell or not is very much an "affect", as there are spells that specifically target that aspect of a caster (Sleet Storm). Also, Concentration isn't a component despite many people probably *thinking* of it as an informal one because it's not listed as a component (the only components are V, S, and M). But again, this was *before* the Sage Advice Compendium update. After they added more intent to the SAC, it became clear as day as to what the RAW was (what I outlined before) and what the RAI was (the SAC has a bullet list of what disqualifies a spell from being twinned). So the SAC, which contains actual rulings for the game, says "The RAW is this, the RAI is that, you and your DM need to decide which to use." So it can still be twinnable, just depends on if your DM cares about following designer intent.
Now the question is whether a DM *should* follow designer intent, at least in regard to twinned spell, or if they should side with the RAW. To decide that, it's important to know that the designers very distinctly don't like twinned spell. They've erroneously (and also correctly sometimes) ruled on it multiple times, back when the SAC didn't say "stop listening to tweets," and the feature has been a major point of contention for them. *Every* addition to SAC regarding twinned spell has weakened the feature more and more. Based on the current RAI, here are a few examples of spells that are no longer twinnable but previously were: Firebolt, Haste, Gust, Dragon's Breath (if you say this wasn't twinnable before, but allowed Haste to be twinned, then you were contradicting your rulings as they both behave in the same way as far as affecting other creatures go), Enlarge/Reduce, Levitate, Dispel Magic. Many of these are no longer twinnable by RAI due to being *capable* of targeting an object instead of a creature. Now, if we take a step back and pretend that the people who wrote that RAI were just random people on internet forums presenting their interpretations of the feature, they wouldn't be taken seriously at all. So if anything, a lot of adherence to this RAI is literally solely because they have titles in their twitter handles that indicate their employment at WotC, and not any actual appeal to expertise on the matter. This is particularly so for both Jeremy and Mike Mearls, as both have made a concerning amount of erroneous tweets about the rules. Some might see this as "you're trying to say the people that made this are wrong" and yes, yes I am, because they're just as human as any one of us and capable of misinterpreting their own past decisions or making blatantly poor choices when answering a question. No profession is immune to that. And if you ask me, looking at what the rules for twinned spells in the book say and then reading 5 more bullet points about what doesn't work with twinned spell that is not written ***anywhere*** in the actual books but rather a *ruling* document after those same designers have a history of being wrong about twinned spell... yeah, doesn't sound like great advice to follow RAI.
TL;DR: The RAW says yes, you can twin Life Transference. The RAI that's in the SAC says the designers don't intend for you to do so, but also says "You and your DM decide."
Super late, but worth bringing up because people still google this question:
Twinned Spell, by designer intent (namely, Jeremy's intent... more on that later) will not work with Life Transference as outlined by the Sage Advice Compendium, which contains actual rulings (among other things). Before that Sage Advice, it was, by RAW, twinnable. Because Jeremy's tweets, and those of any other designer, mean absolutely *nothing* for how the rules in the game work, as pointed out *in* the Sage Advice Compendium (this was likely done because designers were contradicting each other and some, like jeremy for example, were being very inconsistent with the actual text of the book). As RAW, the Target of a spell is who you designate as a target, not just who's "affected" by it. The "anyone affected in the spell's AOE" bit is for AOE spells and is not found elsewhere in the rules for spells; LT is not an AOE spell. Additionally, LT may "affect" the caster in that the caster loses HP to allow another to regain HP, but by that logic any and all concentration spells cannot be twinned because regardless of the effect they have on the *designated target*, they "affect" the caster by occupying their concentration. And whether one is concentrating on a spell or not is very much an "affect", as there are spells that specifically target that aspect of a caster (Sleet Storm). Also, Concentration isn't a component despite many people probably *thinking* of it as an informal one because it's not listed as a component (the only components are V, S, and M). But again, this was *before* the Sage Advice Compendium update. After they added more intent to the SAC, it became clear as day as to what the RAW was (what I outlined before) and what the RAI was (the SAC has a bullet list of what disqualifies a spell from being twinned). So the SAC, which contains actual rulings for the game, says "The RAW is this, the RAI is that, you and your DM need to decide which to use." So it can still be twinnable, just depends on if your DM cares about following designer intent.
Now the question is whether a DM *should* follow designer intent, at least in regard to twinned spell, or if they should side with the RAW. To decide that, it's important to know that the designers very distinctly don't like twinned spell. They've erroneously (and also correctly sometimes) ruled on it multiple times, back when the SAC didn't say "stop listening to tweets," and the feature has been a major point of contention for them. *Every* addition to SAC regarding twinned spell has weakened the feature more and more. Based on the current RAI, here are a few examples of spells that are no longer twinnable but previously were: Firebolt, Haste, Gust, Dragon's Breath (if you say this wasn't twinnable before, but allowed Haste to be twinned, then you were contradicting your rulings as they both behave in the same way as far as affecting other creatures go), Enlarge/Reduce, Levitate, Dispel Magic. Many of these are no longer twinnable by RAI due to being *capable* of targeting an object instead of a creature. Now, if we take a step back and pretend that the people who wrote that RAI were just random people on internet forums presenting their interpretations of the feature, they wouldn't be taken seriously at all. So if anything, a lot of adherence to this RAI is literally solely because they have titles in their twitter handles that indicate their employment at WotC, and not any actual appeal to expertise on the matter. This is particularly so for both Jeremy and Mike Mearls, as both have made a concerning amount of erroneous tweets about the rules. Some might see this as "you're trying to say the people that made this are wrong" and yes, yes I am, because they're just as human as any one of us and capable of misinterpreting their own past decisions or making blatantly poor choices when answering a question. No profession is immune to that. And if you ask me, looking at what the rules for twinned spells in the book say and then reading 5 more bullet points about what doesn't work with twinned spell that is not written ***anywhere*** in the actual books but rather a *ruling* document after those same designers have a history of being wrong about twinned spell... yeah, doesn't sound like great advice to follow RAI.
TL;DR: The RAW says yes, you can twin Life Transference. The RAI that's in the SAC says the designers don't intend for you to do so, but also says "You and your DM decide."
You, I like you. This is what I've been trying to say about post-hoc designer input for ages.
To build on this, if you allow the spell to be twinned, it logically only burns the caster once. It's not creating a copy of the spell, it's just adding a target.
If you twin a Life Transference, you take 4d8 damage which the first creature gets x2, and then you take another 4d8 damage which the 2nd creature gets x2. So you take a total of 8d8 damage.
If you are claiming a twinned life transference only does 4d8 to you, while doing twice that to two creatures, then you are having the spell target the caster as well as the beneficiary.
The only way the spell can do 4d8 without targeting the caster is if the 4d8 you take is a side effect of what the creature gets, which means if you do it to two people you get twice the reaction. Otherwise you are claiming that the 4d8 is part of the spell and is targetting you, rather than a side effect of the spell.
Super late, but worth bringing up because people still google this question:
Twinned Spell, by designer intent (namely, Jeremy's intent... more on that later) will not work with Life Transference as outlined by the Sage Advice Compendium, which contains actual rulings (among other things). Before that Sage Advice, it was, by RAW, twinnable. Because Jeremy's tweets, and those of any other designer, mean absolutely *nothing* for how the rules in the game work, as pointed out *in* the Sage Advice Compendium (this was likely done because designers were contradicting each other and some, like jeremy for example, were being very inconsistent with the actual text of the book). As RAW, the Target of a spell is who you designate as a target, not just who's "affected" by it. The "anyone affected in the spell's AOE" bit is for AOE spells and is not found elsewhere in the rules for spells; LT is not an AOE spell. Additionally, LT may "affect" the caster in that the caster loses HP to allow another to regain HP, but by that logic any and all concentration spells cannot be twinned because regardless of the effect they have on the *designated target*, they "affect" the caster by occupying their concentration. And whether one is concentrating on a spell or not is very much an "affect", as there are spells that specifically target that aspect of a caster (Sleet Storm). Also, Concentration isn't a component despite many people probably *thinking* of it as an informal one because it's not listed as a component (the only components are V, S, and M). But again, this was *before* the Sage Advice Compendium update. After they added more intent to the SAC, it became clear as day as to what the RAW was (what I outlined before) and what the RAI was (the SAC has a bullet list of what disqualifies a spell from being twinned). So the SAC, which contains actual rulings for the game, says "The RAW is this, the RAI is that, you and your DM need to decide which to use." So it can still be twinnable, just depends on if your DM cares about following designer intent.
Now the question is whether a DM *should* follow designer intent, at least in regard to twinned spell, or if they should side with the RAW. To decide that, it's important to know that the designers very distinctly don't like twinned spell. They've erroneously (and also correctly sometimes) ruled on it multiple times, back when the SAC didn't say "stop listening to tweets," and the feature has been a major point of contention for them. *Every* addition to SAC regarding twinned spell has weakened the feature more and more. Based on the current RAI, here are a few examples of spells that are no longer twinnable but previously were: Firebolt, Haste, Gust, Dragon's Breath (if you say this wasn't twinnable before, but allowed Haste to be twinned, then you were contradicting your rulings as they both behave in the same way as far as affecting other creatures go), Enlarge/Reduce, Levitate, Dispel Magic. Many of these are no longer twinnable by RAI due to being *capable* of targeting an object instead of a creature. Now, if we take a step back and pretend that the people who wrote that RAI were just random people on internet forums presenting their interpretations of the feature, they wouldn't be taken seriously at all. So if anything, a lot of adherence to this RAI is literally solely because they have titles in their twitter handles that indicate their employment at WotC, and not any actual appeal to expertise on the matter. This is particularly so for both Jeremy and Mike Mearls, as both have made a concerning amount of erroneous tweets about the rules. Some might see this as "you're trying to say the people that made this are wrong" and yes, yes I am, because they're just as human as any one of us and capable of misinterpreting their own past decisions or making blatantly poor choices when answering a question. No profession is immune to that. And if you ask me, looking at what the rules for twinned spells in the book say and then reading 5 more bullet points about what doesn't work with twinned spell that is not written ***anywhere*** in the actual books but rather a *ruling* document after those same designers have a history of being wrong about twinned spell... yeah, doesn't sound like great advice to follow RAI.
TL;DR: The RAW says yes, you can twin Life Transference. The RAI that's in the SAC says the designers don't intend for you to do so, but also says "You and your DM decide."
Hah, in my attempt to figure out why Haste would be ruled out for Twinning, it occurred to me that Polymorph should also be disqualified by that logic. If two party members each having one additional weapon attack is bad, two party members each being turned into a creature with Multiattack would be *even worse*, right? Heck, are there any Beasts with an AOE effect?
I suppose it's useful for a DM to have a justification for why they might not allow those two spells to be Twinned? But they really should state this fact right away if a player is planning a Sorcerer character, since twinning Haste and Polymorph is a pretty big part of the fantasy of playing a Sorcerer.
If you twin a Life Transference, you take 4d8 damage which the first creature gets x2, and then you take another 4d8 damage which the 2nd creature gets x2. So you take a total of 8d8 damage.
If you are claiming a twinned life transference only does 4d8 to you, while doing twice that to two creatures, then you are having the spell target the caster as well as the beneficiary.
The only way the spell can do 4d8 without targeting the caster is if the 4d8 you take is a side effect of what the creature gets, which means if you do it to two people you get twice the reaction. Otherwise you are claiming that the 4d8 is part of the spell and is targetting you, rather than a side effect of the spell.
Absolutely not. If you look at twinned spell it nowhere says cast the spell again, it says you can pick a second target.
>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).
Why are you paying twice for one meal? It's buy one get one free
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As a divine soul sorcerer can we twin the life transference spell?
I'd say the spell technically targets two creatures: yourself and the creature you want to transfer "life" to.
So, imho, twinned spell cannot be used with Life Transference, but I guess it's ultimately a DM's call.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
I'd agree. The two things that generally prevent a spell from being twinned are that it can't already target/affect multiple creatures, and that it can't be designed to target yourself, i.e. the twinned spell should be hitting two different targets and never affecting the same creature twice (including yourself). Twinning Life Transference would (probably?) have the effect of taking your own hit points twice, which breaks the second rule of Twinned spells, and the fact that it already affects both yourself and another creature breaks the first rule.
I disagree,
Life transfer has a range different than "Self" and targets only one creature to heal no matter the level its casted. And thus should be twinnable.
RAW the spell makes the caster target a creature and, as part of the cost, damages the caster. But the caster isn't a target of the spell, he is part of the cost. This is clear in the conditions of the healing. If the caster doesn't receive any dmg, then the spell doesn't heal anything.
Another possible consequence of considering the caster as part of the targeting would be that the caster is also subject of the effect of the spell (namely, he should be healed by twice the dmg he just received), making the spell incredible powerful.
Whats more, the RAI is pretty clear. The description of the spell clearly states that effect of the spell is to heal the target, while the caster pays with his life for it.
If a spell damages you, it's targeting you. The caster is just as much a target of the spell as the creature receiving the healing. The number of chosen targets is irrelevant. Dragon's Breath is another example of a spell that requires you to choose one creature, but has the potential to target many others through the area of effect the chosen creature can create.
I'm going to have to echo the "it can be twinned" sentiment for no other reason than the first line of the spell:
You sacrifice some of your health to mend another creature's injuries.
With that bit right there I would offer an analogy to any material component to a spell. Find Familiar states it's components must be consumed by a fire in a brass brazier. Gate talks about a diamond worth 5,000 gp and we are of the understanding it's consumed by the spell. Personally, my HP has a cost greater than a 5,000 gp diamond, since without my HP, I'm dead.
This sage advice might clarify: Link
It clearly "affects" two creatures (you losing HP, target gaining HP) so no, you can't Twinned Spell a Life Transference.
Subclass: Dwarven Defender - Dragonborn Paragon
Feats: Artificer Apprentice
Monsters: Sheep - Spellbreaker Warforged Titan
Magic Items: Whipier - Ring of Secret Storage - Collar of the Guardian
Monster template: Skeletal Creature
In the case of the mighty Crawford's tweet; he's speaking of spells that are doing something to another creature or creatures. It affects 1 or more creatures by causing damage. If more than one creature can be damaged you can't twin.
Life transfer does not affect more than 1 creature, only 1 creature is being healed. The healing is the result of casting the spell. Result is what happens when you're done with the actions necessary to get to the effect. The actions of casting a spell are words, wiggling fingers, and using spell components/focus. As well there's a nuance to the wording here that's being missed, and that is the willingness that indicates it's not an effect, it's a requirement.
You lose life equal to the amount of health given to the player you want to heal. That kind of wording makes it so that there is no way to stop the life loss from happening, thus it is an effect of casting the spell. There is no way to stop the effect from happening, there is automatically a transference of health.
You sacrifice health equal to the amount of health given to the player you want to heal. That kind of wording makes it a choice, if you do not sacrifice the health then the player receives none. A choice does not make it an effect, it makes it a part of the V, S, M components to a spell.
I guess I see cause and effect differently, I'll go to my corner then.
Sayiong that the spell targets yourself is like saying fireball is targeting you just because your in the blast radius, which is massive BS. I think it can be twinned. because the spell is drawing life from your body as you cast it, Ie part of the compnant of the spell. not targeting yourself. otherwise it would have a target selection of Self Like other spells. Look at the spell Blur For example it has no designation that your 'tartgeting' yourself. the spell simply takes effect. And bur has a target of :self. Life transferance doesnt, hince the damage to oneself is a component not a target.
Here is the full description of Twinned Spell:
Life Transference targets two creatures, so it is not eligible for Twinned Spell. Fireball--regardless of whether it does only target one creature in any specific instance--has the capability of targeting more than one creature, so it is not eligible either.
Here is an entry from the Sage Advice Compendium (the official one) further explaining what makes a spell ineligible for TS:
Two creatures affected: yourself, and your primary target. That clearly disqualifies it, but you can also look to the last bullet for additional confirmation--your roll affects two creatures.
And here's an official podcast where Jeremy Crawford provides more insight into what counts as the target of a 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.
This spell can be twinned nothing says you target yourself. That’s like saying if you cast clone and twin it when you use the component for your skin as it’s part of yourself that it targets two creatures. That’s also like saying spells like create Magen which takes away your hit points can’t be twinned. Nothing on the spell applies you as a target. Your hit points or your body are a components to the spell.
and here’s sage advice look at the tweet he responded to asking if you are targeted. He said no you are healing another creature. This means you are NOT targeted by this spell
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/935319827333263360?lang=en
Super late, but worth bringing up because people still google this question:
Twinned Spell, by designer intent (namely, Jeremy's intent... more on that later) will not work with Life Transference as outlined by the Sage Advice Compendium, which contains actual rulings (among other things). Before that Sage Advice, it was, by RAW, twinnable. Because Jeremy's tweets, and those of any other designer, mean absolutely *nothing* for how the rules in the game work, as pointed out *in* the Sage Advice Compendium (this was likely done because designers were contradicting each other and some, like jeremy for example, were being very inconsistent with the actual text of the book). As RAW, the Target of a spell is who you designate as a target, not just who's "affected" by it. The "anyone affected in the spell's AOE" bit is for AOE spells and is not found elsewhere in the rules for spells; LT is not an AOE spell. Additionally, LT may "affect" the caster in that the caster loses HP to allow another to regain HP, but by that logic any and all concentration spells cannot be twinned because regardless of the effect they have on the *designated target*, they "affect" the caster by occupying their concentration. And whether one is concentrating on a spell or not is very much an "affect", as there are spells that specifically target that aspect of a caster (Sleet Storm). Also, Concentration isn't a component despite many people probably *thinking* of it as an informal one because it's not listed as a component (the only components are V, S, and M). But again, this was *before* the Sage Advice Compendium update. After they added more intent to the SAC, it became clear as day as to what the RAW was (what I outlined before) and what the RAI was (the SAC has a bullet list of what disqualifies a spell from being twinned). So the SAC, which contains actual rulings for the game, says "The RAW is this, the RAI is that, you and your DM need to decide which to use." So it can still be twinnable, just depends on if your DM cares about following designer intent.
Now the question is whether a DM *should* follow designer intent, at least in regard to twinned spell, or if they should side with the RAW. To decide that, it's important to know that the designers very distinctly don't like twinned spell. They've erroneously (and also correctly sometimes) ruled on it multiple times, back when the SAC didn't say "stop listening to tweets," and the feature has been a major point of contention for them. *Every* addition to SAC regarding twinned spell has weakened the feature more and more. Based on the current RAI, here are a few examples of spells that are no longer twinnable but previously were: Firebolt, Haste, Gust, Dragon's Breath (if you say this wasn't twinnable before, but allowed Haste to be twinned, then you were contradicting your rulings as they both behave in the same way as far as affecting other creatures go), Enlarge/Reduce, Levitate, Dispel Magic. Many of these are no longer twinnable by RAI due to being *capable* of targeting an object instead of a creature. Now, if we take a step back and pretend that the people who wrote that RAI were just random people on internet forums presenting their interpretations of the feature, they wouldn't be taken seriously at all. So if anything, a lot of adherence to this RAI is literally solely because they have titles in their twitter handles that indicate their employment at WotC, and not any actual appeal to expertise on the matter. This is particularly so for both Jeremy and Mike Mearls, as both have made a concerning amount of erroneous tweets about the rules. Some might see this as "you're trying to say the people that made this are wrong" and yes, yes I am, because they're just as human as any one of us and capable of misinterpreting their own past decisions or making blatantly poor choices when answering a question. No profession is immune to that. And if you ask me, looking at what the rules for twinned spells in the book say and then reading 5 more bullet points about what doesn't work with twinned spell that is not written ***anywhere*** in the actual books but rather a *ruling* document after those same designers have a history of being wrong about twinned spell... yeah, doesn't sound like great advice to follow RAI.
TL;DR: The RAW says yes, you can twin Life Transference. The RAI that's in the SAC says the designers don't intend for you to do so, but also says "You and your DM decide."
You, I like you. This is what I've been trying to say about post-hoc designer input for ages.
To build on this, if you allow the spell to be twinned, it logically only burns the caster once. It's not creating a copy of the spell, it's just adding a target.
For me the rule should be simple.
If you twin a Life Transference, you take 4d8 damage which the first creature gets x2, and then you take another 4d8 damage which the 2nd creature gets x2. So you take a total of 8d8 damage.
If you are claiming a twinned life transference only does 4d8 to you, while doing twice that to two creatures, then you are having the spell target the caster as well as the beneficiary.
The only way the spell can do 4d8 without targeting the caster is if the 4d8 you take is a side effect of what the creature gets, which means if you do it to two people you get twice the reaction. Otherwise you are claiming that the 4d8 is part of the spell and is targetting you, rather than a side effect of the spell.
Hah, in my attempt to figure out why Haste would be ruled out for Twinning, it occurred to me that Polymorph should also be disqualified by that logic. If two party members each having one additional weapon attack is bad, two party members each being turned into a creature with Multiattack would be *even worse*, right? Heck, are there any Beasts with an AOE effect?
I suppose it's useful for a DM to have a justification for why they might not allow those two spells to be Twinned? But they really should state this fact right away if a player is planning a Sorcerer character, since twinning Haste and Polymorph is a pretty big part of the fantasy of playing a Sorcerer.
Absolutely not. If you look at twinned spell it nowhere says cast the spell again, it says you can pick a second target.
>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).
Why are you paying twice for one meal? It's buy one get one free