Yeah. You would ignore both resistance and immunity to this necrotic damage. Because the damage cannot be reduced in any way.
Immunity is not a damage reduction. It is applied before damage reduction is considered.
Here’s the order that you apply modifiers to damage: (1) any relevant damage immunity, (2) any addition or subtraction to the damage, (3) one relevant damage resistance, and (4) one relevant damage vulnerability.
That being said, I'm still convinced you would apply the full necrotic damage because how else are they supposed to say it?
Looking back at the early posts in this thread, it's so weird to me that Jeremy Crawford (whose tweets were considered official rulings at that time) would say that resistance would still apply even though it says the damage cannot be reduced in any way. I know resistance applies after reduction, but when you say resistance = half damage, that's damage reduction, yo!
Anyway, I'm not bringing this up as evidence that what we are saying is not correct, but more of a historical WTF moment.
That's probably why even WotC came out and said that Jeremy's Tweets don't mean crap anymore. He is FAMOUS for tweeting one thing one day, and the exact opposite next week.
Interestingly, unless I've missed something, immunity is not actually defined anywhere in the source books. The combat chapter of the PHB gives pretty detailed definitions of resistance and vulnerability, but not immunity. If someone could quote something -- perhaps from the Monster Manual or the DMG or another source book -- that explicitly defines immunity, that would help tremendously.
There is a potential interpretation where Life Transference simply does not work correctly if the spellcaster is immune to necrotic damage, despite the errata that it "can't be reduced in any way". In such a case, this would result in you taking 0 damage, and the creature that you are trying to heal would heal for 0.
Of course, this would depend a lot on the definition of immunity. For example, does immunity "reduce the damage taken to 0"? Does immunity mean that "you take 0 damage"?
It's kind of funny you bring this up because the fact that immunity is not defined anywhere in the game is a bit of a running joke on the D&D Discord rules channel when talking about ultra-pedantic RAW arguments. "If the game doesn't tell me what immunity means, how can I be sure it means anything at all?"
Heh, yeah I agree that in general that is pretty amusing. But in this case, it would actually be tremendously helpful to be able to quote a precise definition from the text. The current question in this thread has to do with the conflict between immunity and the errata which talks about damage that "can't be reduced in any way". Basically, which one wins? If immunity is defined as "reduces the damage taken to 0" then the errata wins. If immunity is defined as "takes 0 damage" then immunity wins.
For what it's worth -- if immunity really and truly isn't defined anywhere -- which means it's up to the DM -- then my own ruling is that immunity wins. Which means that Life Transference causes 0 damage and you heal the target creature for 0 HP.
Immunity is not a damage reduction. It is applied before damage reduction is considered.
That being said, I'm still convinced you would apply the full necrotic damage because how else are they supposed to say it?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
would it not be better if the spell were written like this
You sacrifice X amount of your hit points to mend another creature’s injuries, that creature regains X amount of hit points.
Looking back at the early posts in this thread, it's so weird to me that Jeremy Crawford (whose tweets were considered official rulings at that time) would say that resistance would still apply even though it says the damage cannot be reduced in any way. I know resistance applies after reduction, but when you say resistance = half damage, that's damage reduction, yo!
Anyway, I'm not bringing this up as evidence that what we are saying is not correct, but more of a historical WTF moment.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
That's probably why even WotC came out and said that Jeremy's Tweets don't mean crap anymore. He is FAMOUS for tweeting one thing one day, and the exact opposite next week.
Interestingly, unless I've missed something, immunity is not actually defined anywhere in the source books. The combat chapter of the PHB gives pretty detailed definitions of resistance and vulnerability, but not immunity. If someone could quote something -- perhaps from the Monster Manual or the DMG or another source book -- that explicitly defines immunity, that would help tremendously.
There is a potential interpretation where Life Transference simply does not work correctly if the spellcaster is immune to necrotic damage, despite the errata that it "can't be reduced in any way". In such a case, this would result in you taking 0 damage, and the creature that you are trying to heal would heal for 0.
Of course, this would depend a lot on the definition of immunity. For example, does immunity "reduce the damage taken to 0"? Does immunity mean that "you take 0 damage"?
It's kind of funny you bring this up because the fact that immunity is not defined anywhere in the game is a bit of a running joke on the D&D Discord rules channel when talking about ultra-pedantic RAW arguments. "If the game doesn't tell me what immunity means, how can I be sure it means anything at all?"
I guess we'll just have to do our best 🤣
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Heh, yeah I agree that in general that is pretty amusing. But in this case, it would actually be tremendously helpful to be able to quote a precise definition from the text. The current question in this thread has to do with the conflict between immunity and the errata which talks about damage that "can't be reduced in any way". Basically, which one wins? If immunity is defined as "reduces the damage taken to 0" then the errata wins. If immunity is defined as "takes 0 damage" then immunity wins.
For what it's worth -- if immunity really and truly isn't defined anywhere -- which means it's up to the DM -- then my own ruling is that immunity wins. Which means that Life Transference causes 0 damage and you heal the target creature for 0 HP.
Can you target yourself with the spell and heal 4d8 health?
As written, no, but only because of the first sentence in the description -- "You sacrifice some of your health to mend another creature’s injuries"
Even if you can sell your DM on the idea that it does work you still take the damage first.