It's not irrelevant when you're arguing for a rule to be recognized in this context, which will cause problems in every other context. Eyebite shows rather clearly that "the target of a spell is any creature the spell effects" is false.
Are you instead agreeing that that is not an (unwritten) rule about targets, but rather that Twinned Spell has unwritten text that says "no spell which effects more than one creature may be Twinned"? That is equally unsupported by the RAW, but at least limits its damage to the context of a single class, rather than corrupting every published spell for everyone?
Do you need Eyebite quoted for you? Because there is both the target of the casting (the spellcaster) and the target of the spell's possible effects for the duration.
But more to the point, Twinned Spell specifically requires for a spell to have only one target. And, as we've already established via a plain reading of the text, any creature or object that can be affected by a spell is considered a potential target. This applies even if the spell does not specifically label them as a target. Why? Because 5th edition does not care about such minutia. It doesn't have a rule for everything because it relies heavily on natural language. It assumes we're all smart enough to figure it out because it's supposedly written how we naturally speak and understand something to be. And there is no shortage of interviews with the likes of Crawford, Mearls, et al which explicitly state this.
I am finding it incredibly difficult to understand what your thesis is:
Eyebite (the spell, not the spell's secondary effect) targets an enemy, in violation of Chapter 10 target-must-be-within-range rule, but that's okay?
Eyebite doesn't target an enemy and complies with Chapter 10, but Twinned Spell nevertheless has an (unwritten) restriction on spells that "effect" more than one creature?
It doesn't matter what Eyebite does or does not target, all that matters is that I agree with you about your conclusion (that you can't Twin Ice Knife), no matter what it takes to get there?
If you could kindly take just one position, I might be able to more effectively respond to it, rather than trying to defend the written language of the PHB against a thousand different attacks from multiple contradictory angles at once.
1) Your argument is in bad faith. It is clear that the feature is supposed to work on spells that "hit" one creature. Ice Knife "hits" more than one creature. It isn't supposed to work that way, and we know it.
2) "Target" has inconsistent use in the rules, and any attempt to systematize its meaning must account for all of its uses, not just the convenient ones.
I am finding it incredibly difficult to understand what your thesis is:
Eyebite (the spell, not the spell's secondary effect) targets an enemy, in violation of Chapter 10 target-must-be-within-range rule, but that's okay?
Eyebite doesn't target an enemy and complies with Chapter 10, but Twinned Spell nevertheless has an (unwritten) restriction on spells that "effect" more than one creature?
It doesn't matter what Eyebite does or does not target, all that matters is that I agree with you about your conclusion (that you can't Twin Ice Knife), no matter what it takes to get there?
If you could kindly take just one position, I might be able to more effectively respond to it, rather than trying to defend the written language of the PHB against a thousand different attacks from multiple contradictory angles at once.
No, Eyebite has a range of Self and targets the caster. The caster can then, through the spell, target another creature. (Functionally, it is similar to spells like Flame Blade and Vampiric Touch.) And because the target of Eyebite is Self, Eyebite cannot be subject to Twinned Spell.
Ice Knife cannot be twinned because one of the other requirements of Twinned Spell is that the spell can only target (i.e. affect) one creature. And Ice Knife clearly has the potential to target (i.e. affect) more than one creature; even if you're not aware of any additional creatures that might be potential targets.
And now that this has been settled, can we get back to the subject of Booming Blade? Or should we ask for someone to close the thread?
No, Eyebite has a range of Self and targets the caster. The caster can then, through the spell, target another creature. (Functionally, it is similar to spells like Flame Blade and Vampiric Touch.) And because the target of Eyebite is Self, Eyebite cannot be subject to Twinned Spell.
I'm only talking about Eyebite to better understand the bounds of the argument (I thought) you were all making about unwritten "target" rules in general. Now that I'm hearing that we're talking about unwritten rule language in Twinned Spell, and not unwritten language in Chapter 10, we can safely set Eyebite aside and accept that there is no general "a target is any creature effected by a spell" language. Great, we're all in agreement, Eyebite can't be Twinned first and foremost because its range is Self...
Ice Knife cannot be twinned because one of the other requirements of Twinned Spell is that the spell can only target (i.e. affect) one creature. And Ice Knife clearly has the potential to target (i.e. affect) more than one creature; even if you're not aware of any additional creatures that might be potential targets.
...But then, we get right back to you saying that Ice Knife can't be Twinned because "the spell can only target (i.e. affect) one creature." See what I'm saying about you guys not picking a single position, and thus being impossible for me to effectively respond to? I'm losing sight of the argument here, choose ONE:
Ice Knife can't be Twinned because any creature EFFECTED by a spell is considered TARGETED by a spell (despite there being no language in Chapter 10 that says so), and Twinned Spell is restricted to spells that TARGET one creature
Ice Knife can't be Twinned because Twinned Spell is restricted to spells that EFFECT only one creature (despite there being no language in the Twinned Spell description that says so).
If it's #1, we've gotta go back and keep fighting about Eyebite, because with that interpretation applied to other spells like Eyebite, we violate Chapter 10's explicit restriction that a spell can only target targets within its range. You're creating a very large and very farflung problem for spellcasting in general that goes far beyond Twinned Spell interactions, and I'll fight you over it and show its ridiculous consequences until my dying breath.
If it's #2, then I can just accept that you're houseruling Twinned Spell to come in line with JC's suggestions, and agree to disagree with you about whether the spell is Twinnable and move on with my life, because I can't prove that that houserule is "wrong" or has unintended consequences the same way I can for #1.
No, Eyebite has a range of Self and targets the caster. The caster can then, through the spell, target another creature. (Functionally, it is similar to spells like Flame Blade and Vampiric Touch.) And because the target of Eyebite is Self, Eyebite cannot be subject to Twinned Spell.
I'm only talking about Eyebite to better understand the bounds of the argument (I thought) you were all making about unwritten "target" rules in general. Now that I'm hearing that we're talking about unwritten rule language in Twinned Spell, and not unwritten language in Chapter 10, we can safely set Eyebite aside and accept that there is no general "a target is any creature effected by a spell" language. Great, we're all in agreement, Eyebite can't be Twinned first and foremost because its range is Self...
Ice Knife cannot be twinned because one of the other requirements of Twinned Spell is that the spell can only target (i.e. affect) one creature. And Ice Knife clearly has the potential to target (i.e. affect) more than one creature; even if you're not aware of any additional creatures that might be potential targets.
...But then, we get right back to you saying that Ice Knife can't be Twinned because "the spell can only target (i.e. affect) one creature." See what I'm saying about you guys not picking a single position, and thus being impossible for me to effectively respond to? I'm losing sight of the argument here, choose ONE:
Ice Knife can't be Twinned because any creature EFFECTED by a spell is considered TARGETED by a spell (despite there being no language in Chapter 10 that says so), and Twinned Spell is restricted to spells that TARGET one creature
Ice Knife can't be Twinned because Twinned Spell is restricted to spells that EFFECT only one creature (despite there being no language in the Twinned Spell description that says so).
If it's #1, we've gotta go back and keep fighting about Eyebite, because with that interpretation applied to other spells like Eyebite, we violate Chapter 10's explicit restriction that a spell can only target targets within its range. You're creating a very large and very farflung problem for spellcasting in general that goes far beyond Twinned Spell interactions, and I'll fight you over it and show its ridiculous consequences until my dying breath.
If it's #2, then I can just accept that you're houseruling Twinned Spell to come in line with JC's suggestions, and agree to disagree with you about whether the spell is Twinnable and move on with my life, because I can't prove that that houserule is "wrong" or has unintended consequences the same way I can for #1.
There's no house ruling being done here unless it's by you. Ice Knife cannot be twinned because the Range of the spell has a parenthetical area of effect. It doesn't matter if the Range is noted as "Self (X ft AoE)" or "X ft (Y ft AoE)", as soon as you add that parenthetical you create an area of effect and the spell gains multiple potential targets. Remember, one of the definitions of target is, "something or someone to be affected by an action or development." Anything which can be affected by a spell is a potential target of that spell. The word "target" does not need to be used in every description. Natural language does not require such specificity.
I, we, haven't been inconsistent. And it's both offensive and dishonest of you to keep insisting so.
... Remember, one of the definitions of target is, "something or someone to be affected by an action or development." Anything which can be affected by a spell is a potential target of that spell. The word "target" does not need to be used in every description. Natural language does not require such specificity.
...
And not only do we know that the word "target" *can* be used with this meaning, we know that it *is* used with this meaning - in the very rules we are discussing! We know what the targeting rules say is "the target" for Fireball; a point in space within the spell's range. Then right there in that spell description the word target is used to refer to all creatures in the area of effect. Those are the two meanings mentioned earlier in this thread, and both are used in this rule book.
"I'll fight you over it until my dying breath" was a bluff, I'm tired of this. You've chosen an implausibly niche definition of "target" to hang your argument on, which appears only on Merriam Webster and doesn't resemble any of the definitions on dictionary.com or Cambridge, and which any reasonable reader should find eclipsed by a more common definition like "something or someone fired at or marked for attack," which all three of those dictionaries share in one form or another, and which would match the actual language of Chapter 10 much more closely... but whatever, fine.Summon Greater Demon is a spell which effects one demon now, enjoy Twinning it. Call Lightning can be cast in a way that hits just one creature, so I guess you can call it a (potentially) single-creature-target spell now too... not good enough to Twin it since it could be multi-target, but nothing stopping you from using it with Warcaster. Arcane Eye creates an eye somewhere else, but all that eye effects is to provide you the caster some new sensory information... so I guess Arcane Eye isn't really targeting a point of origin, but rather another example of a single-creature-target spell targeting yourself, and a caster mounted on their Steed can actually make two eyes. Blur is not a single-target-spell targeting yourself like dummies such as myself had assumed, since its actual effect is to impose disadvantage on the attacks of others.
This is all very stupid, and if you can't see that it's stupid by now, I don't know how I can make you see it. Some spells describe effected creatures as targets, and some spells describe effected creatures as effected creatures instead, and pretending that the rules require that all of those be targets just doesn't have any written support in the PHB. But, fine, you play your way I'll play mine.
Also, I really don't know the difference between "affect" and "effect" and I'm starting to get very self conscious being this many pages deep into a debate where I'm using it so much, blechhhhh get me outa this already and wake me up when the Booming Blade rewrite is published :p
All your examples are assuming we are arguing that "creatures affected by the spell" is the only definition/meaning of "target". We aren't arguing that. Arguing that would result in stupidity. But we are saying both meanings of target are actually used in the rule book text. That means that RAW is not simply "Ice Knife targets a creature so it can be twinned" - there is more to it. Because of the use of both meanings of target in the text, we must use more discretion when we interpret that rule.
Our interpretation of the rules is perfectly consistent with both RAW and RAI, and has been backed up by many Sage Advices / tweets clarifying what can and can't be Twinned. Ice Knife can't. Nor can any AOE spell.
Just a side question, I know that it's more than a bit unclear what targets of the spell are, but do you consider that people in the area of effect of a spell with a duration greater than instantaneous are targets ? For example people walking into a grease area, or entering a stinking cloud a few rounds after the casting ?
Yes, probably for most purposes. I feel someone becomes a target of a spell either if someone chooses them as a target, or as soon as they are exposed to its direct effect. If they heal or take damage from it, acquire or lose a condition from it, or are forced to take a saving throw because of it (or similar) then they could be considered a target of that spell. That doesn't mean I will mindlessly apply all rules and mechanics that use the word target to that creature, but they must be considered for such things. For example, if a mechanic required that they "be targeted by a spell", then probably it doesn't apply because they were never actively "targeted". But if some effect added extra damage to every target of a spellcaster's spells, then I would include these later targets.
This is my opinion. I believe it aligns best with the words written in the rulebooks, and also with the intent of the designers.
"I'll fight you over it until my dying breath" was a bluff, I'm tired of this. You've chosen an implausibly niche definition of "target" to hang your argument on, which appears only on Merriam Webster and doesn't resemble any of the definitions on dictionary.com or Cambridge, and which any reasonable reader should find eclipsed by a more common definition like "something or someone fired at or marked for attack," which all three of those dictionaries share in one form or another, and which would match the actual language of Chapter 10 much more closely... but whatever, fine.
I don't see how a broader definition is niche, but let's look at the two you linked. Dictionary dot com omits that a target could be a subject of ridicule, which is found both with Mirriam-Webster and Cambridge. As for Cambridge, definition C2 reads, "A person or a particulargroup of people that something is directed at, or that something is intended for." And there are more, further down the page, which are consistent with the definition we've been using. The OED, the most complete dictionary of the English language, has it, too.
Summon Greater Demon is a spell which effects one demon now, enjoy Twinning it. Call Lightning can be cast in a way that hits just one creature, so I guess you can call it a (potentially) single-creature-target spell now too... not good enough to Twin it since it could be multi-target, but nothing stopping you from using it with Warcaster. Arcane Eye creates an eye somewhere else, but all that eye effects is to provide you the caster some new sensory information... so I guess Arcane Eye isn't really targeting a point of origin, but rather another example of a single-creature-target spell targeting yourself, and a caster mounted on their Steed can actually make two eyes. Blur is not a single-target-spell targeting yourself like dummies such as myself had assumed, since its actual effect is to impose disadvantage on the attacks of others.
No for Summon Greater Demon because you aren't targeting a specific creature, you're conjuring something into a space you can see. And no for Call Lightning because you target a point and can affect multiple creatures. Functionally, that behaves identically to fireball. It cannot be Twinned, and it cannot be used in conjunction with War Caster. Arcane Eye targets a space and creates (i.e. conjures) something. It doesn't target a creature, not even the spellcaster. And Blur expressly has a Range of Self, meaning it is cast on the spellcaster and no one else.
This is all very stupid, and if you can't see that it's stupid by now, I don't know how I can make you see it. Some spells describe effected creatures as targets, and some spells describe effected creatures as effected creatures instead, and pretending that the rules require that all of those be targets just doesn't have any written support in the PHB. But, fine, you play your way I'll play mine.
Also, I really don't know the difference between "affect" and "effect" and I'm starting to get very self conscious being this many pages deep into a debate where I'm using it so much, blechhhhh get me outa this already and wake me up when the Booming Blade rewrite is published :p
I'll admit, this discussion has gotten somewhat silly. None of this is difficult to grasp if English is your first language. If it's not, we can help with that. If it is, then you, quite frankly, do not understand the rules as written. We, or others, if you prefer, can help with that, too.
Also, I really don't know the difference between "affect" and "effect" and I'm starting to get very self conscious being this many pages deep into a debate where I'm using it so much, blechhhhh get me outa this already and wake me up when the Booming Blade rewrite is published :p
As i understand it and use them (and to be fair, I have had to look it up and this is what I remember about the answer)
Effect (noun) = the result of a cause. "The effect of the addition of the chemical was the production of a noxious gas."
Affect (noun) = mannerism or something similar, similar to "affectation". "He had the affect of well-to-do man."
Effect (verb) = put into action. "You can effect the change you want to see in the world."
Affect (verb) = to produce a change or to cause a result. "That scene really affected him."
Most of the time, speaker intend to talk about effects (noun, results) from being affected (verb, change produced).
And Blur expressly has a Range of Self, meaning it is cast on the spellcaster and no one else.
Quote from Blur:
An attacker is immune to this effect if it doesn’t rely on sight, as with blindsight, or can see through illusions, as with truesight.
Why would an attacker have to be immune to an effect he is not a target of? ;-)
In the same way that a blind person with a seizure disorder can be immune to the effects of the flashing lights in a Japanese cartoon, even though the cartoon isn’t specifically targeting that person.
Or, you know how your pee smells funny when you eat asparagus? The ability to smell that is genetic. So it’s the same way that a person who doesn’t have that genes never has to smell that smell, even though they were never the target.
And Blur expressly has a Range of Self, meaning it is cast on the spellcaster and no one else.
Quote from Blur:
An attacker is immune to this effect if it doesn’t rely on sight, as with blindsight, or can see through illusions, as with truesight.
Why would an attacker have to be immune to an effect he is not a target of? ;-)
In the same way that a blind person with a seizure disorder can be immune to the effects of the flashing lights in a Japanese cartoon, even though the cartoon isn’t specifically targeting that person.
Or, you know how your pee smells funny when you eat asparagus? The ability to smell that is genetic. So it’s the same way that a person who doesn’t have that genes never has to smell that smell, even though they were never the target.
Alright, I get it. So here is where the lines get blurred (hehe). The cartoon doesn't target that person specifically - it doesn't target anyone specifically, actually but some can be affected by it and some can't.
Same with Blur - despite the fact that the caster is the target, it's other creatures who are affected by it (disadvantage on roll) or not.
Hypothetical question: if we changed Blur so that it can be cast on one chosen creature within, say, 30 ft. range (as opposed to self), would you allow for it to be twinned?
And Blur expressly has a Range of Self, meaning it is cast on the spellcaster and no one else.
Quote from Blur:
An attacker is immune to this effect if it doesn’t rely on sight, as with blindsight, or can see through illusions, as with truesight.
Why would an attacker have to be immune to an effect he is not a target of? ;-)
If I was being cheeky, I'd say because the spell says so. Blur creates an illusion that an attacker must not only see but rely on that sight in order for it to matter. Blindsight and Truesight can bypass it completely, and for good reason. You can't be affected by a visual illusion you cannot see; much in the same way that you cannot cast spells with a Verbal component in an area subject to Silence. Technically, a character could just close their eyes to ignore Blur. But the end effect would be a wash, so there's no point.
That said, the same character could close their eyes to ignore the effect of Mirror Image; trading the randomness of hitting an illusion for disadvantage. And someone else can always find a way to give them the benefit of the Help action; offsetting the disadvantage.
And, of course, this also works in reverse. A functionally blind character gains no benefit from Faerie Fire.
This reminds of JC's very controversial Dragon Breath ruling.
What's the controversial ruling?
That the person imbued with it can target another creature with their new ability and thus Dragon Breath doesn't meet the requirement of Twinned Spell.
This reminds of JC's very controversial Dragon Breath ruling.
What's the controversial ruling?
That the person imbued with it can target another creature with their new ability and thus Dragon Breath doesn't meet the requirement of Twinned Spell.
Oh, I thought you were alluding to something else. That's a consistent ruling on Crawford's part. It might stink, from a certain perspective, but it makes sense.
If you can't twin Ice Knife, then you can't twin Dragon's Breath.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Do you need Eyebite quoted for you? Because there is both the target of the casting (the spellcaster) and the target of the spell's possible effects for the duration.
But more to the point, Twinned Spell specifically requires for a spell to have only one target. And, as we've already established via a plain reading of the text, any creature or object that can be affected by a spell is considered a potential target. This applies even if the spell does not specifically label them as a target. Why? Because 5th edition does not care about such minutia. It doesn't have a rule for everything because it relies heavily on natural language. It assumes we're all smart enough to figure it out because it's supposedly written how we naturally speak and understand something to be. And there is no shortage of interviews with the likes of Crawford, Mearls, et al which explicitly state this.
I am finding it incredibly difficult to understand what your thesis is:
If you could kindly take just one position, I might be able to more effectively respond to it, rather than trying to defend the written language of the PHB against a thousand different attacks from multiple contradictory angles at once.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
My thesis is that
1) Your argument is in bad faith. It is clear that the feature is supposed to work on spells that "hit" one creature. Ice Knife "hits" more than one creature. It isn't supposed to work that way, and we know it.
2) "Target" has inconsistent use in the rules, and any attempt to systematize its meaning must account for all of its uses, not just the convenient ones.
No, Eyebite has a range of Self and targets the caster. The caster can then, through the spell, target another creature. (Functionally, it is similar to spells like Flame Blade and Vampiric Touch.) And because the target of Eyebite is Self, Eyebite cannot be subject to Twinned Spell.
Ice Knife cannot be twinned because one of the other requirements of Twinned Spell is that the spell can only target (i.e. affect) one creature. And Ice Knife clearly has the potential to target (i.e. affect) more than one creature; even if you're not aware of any additional creatures that might be potential targets.
And now that this has been settled, can we get back to the subject of Booming Blade? Or should we ask for someone to close the thread?
I'm only talking about Eyebite to better understand the bounds of the argument (I thought) you were all making about unwritten "target" rules in general. Now that I'm hearing that we're talking about unwritten rule language in Twinned Spell, and not unwritten language in Chapter 10, we can safely set Eyebite aside and accept that there is no general "a target is any creature effected by a spell" language. Great, we're all in agreement, Eyebite can't be Twinned first and foremost because its range is Self...
...But then, we get right back to you saying that Ice Knife can't be Twinned because "the spell can only target (i.e. affect) one creature." See what I'm saying about you guys not picking a single position, and thus being impossible for me to effectively respond to? I'm losing sight of the argument here, choose ONE:
If it's #1, we've gotta go back and keep fighting about Eyebite, because with that interpretation applied to other spells like Eyebite, we violate Chapter 10's explicit restriction that a spell can only target targets within its range. You're creating a very large and very farflung problem for spellcasting in general that goes far beyond Twinned Spell interactions, and I'll fight you over it and show its ridiculous consequences until my dying breath.
If it's #2, then I can just accept that you're houseruling Twinned Spell to come in line with JC's suggestions, and agree to disagree with you about whether the spell is Twinnable and move on with my life, because I can't prove that that houserule is "wrong" or has unintended consequences the same way I can for #1.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
There's no house ruling being done here unless it's by you. Ice Knife cannot be twinned because the Range of the spell has a parenthetical area of effect. It doesn't matter if the Range is noted as "Self (X ft AoE)" or "X ft (Y ft AoE)", as soon as you add that parenthetical you create an area of effect and the spell gains multiple potential targets. Remember, one of the definitions of target is, "something or someone to be affected by an action or development." Anything which can be affected by a spell is a potential target of that spell. The word "target" does not need to be used in every description. Natural language does not require such specificity.
I, we, haven't been inconsistent. And it's both offensive and dishonest of you to keep insisting so.
And not only do we know that the word "target" *can* be used with this meaning, we know that it *is* used with this meaning - in the very rules we are discussing! We know what the targeting rules say is "the target" for Fireball; a point in space within the spell's range. Then right there in that spell description the word target is used to refer to all creatures in the area of effect. Those are the two meanings mentioned earlier in this thread, and both are used in this rule book.
"I'll fight you over it until my dying breath" was a bluff, I'm tired of this. You've chosen an implausibly niche definition of "target" to hang your argument on, which appears only on Merriam Webster and doesn't resemble any of the definitions on dictionary.com or Cambridge, and which any reasonable reader should find eclipsed by a more common definition like "something or someone fired at or marked for attack," which all three of those dictionaries share in one form or another, and which would match the actual language of Chapter 10 much more closely... but whatever, fine.Summon Greater Demon is a spell which effects one demon now, enjoy Twinning it. Call Lightning can be cast in a way that hits just one creature, so I guess you can call it a (potentially) single-creature-target spell now too... not good enough to Twin it since it could be multi-target, but nothing stopping you from using it with Warcaster. Arcane Eye creates an eye somewhere else, but all that eye effects is to provide you the caster some new sensory information... so I guess Arcane Eye isn't really targeting a point of origin, but rather another example of a single-creature-target spell targeting yourself, and a caster mounted on their Steed can actually make two eyes. Blur is not a single-target-spell targeting yourself like dummies such as myself had assumed, since its actual effect is to impose disadvantage on the attacks of others.
This is all very stupid, and if you can't see that it's stupid by now, I don't know how I can make you see it. Some spells describe effected creatures as targets, and some spells describe effected creatures as effected creatures instead, and pretending that the rules require that all of those be targets just doesn't have any written support in the PHB. But, fine, you play your way I'll play mine.
Also, I really don't know the difference between "affect" and "effect" and I'm starting to get very self conscious being this many pages deep into a debate where I'm using it so much, blechhhhh get me outa this already and wake me up when the Booming Blade rewrite is published :p
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
All your examples are assuming we are arguing that "creatures affected by the spell" is the only definition/meaning of "target". We aren't arguing that. Arguing that would result in stupidity. But we are saying both meanings of target are actually used in the rule book text. That means that RAW is not simply "Ice Knife targets a creature so it can be twinned" - there is more to it. Because of the use of both meanings of target in the text, we must use more discretion when we interpret that rule.
Our interpretation of the rules is perfectly consistent with both RAW and RAI, and has been backed up by many Sage Advices / tweets clarifying what can and can't be Twinned. Ice Knife can't. Nor can any AOE spell.
Yes, probably for most purposes. I feel someone becomes a target of a spell either if someone chooses them as a target, or as soon as they are exposed to its direct effect. If they heal or take damage from it, acquire or lose a condition from it, or are forced to take a saving throw because of it (or similar) then they could be considered a target of that spell. That doesn't mean I will mindlessly apply all rules and mechanics that use the word target to that creature, but they must be considered for such things. For example, if a mechanic required that they "be targeted by a spell", then probably it doesn't apply because they were never actively "targeted". But if some effect added extra damage to every target of a spellcaster's spells, then I would include these later targets.
This is my opinion. I believe it aligns best with the words written in the rulebooks, and also with the intent of the designers.
I don't see how a broader definition is niche, but let's look at the two you linked. Dictionary dot com omits that a target could be a subject of ridicule, which is found both with Mirriam-Webster and Cambridge. As for Cambridge, definition C2 reads, "A person or a particular group of people that something is directed at, or that something is intended for." And there are more, further down the page, which are consistent with the definition we've been using. The OED, the most complete dictionary of the English language, has it, too.
No for Summon Greater Demon because you aren't targeting a specific creature, you're conjuring something into a space you can see. And no for Call Lightning because you target a point and can affect multiple creatures. Functionally, that behaves identically to fireball. It cannot be Twinned, and it cannot be used in conjunction with War Caster. Arcane Eye targets a space and creates (i.e. conjures) something. It doesn't target a creature, not even the spellcaster. And Blur expressly has a Range of Self, meaning it is cast on the spellcaster and no one else.
I'll admit, this discussion has gotten somewhat silly. None of this is difficult to grasp if English is your first language. If it's not, we can help with that. If it is, then you, quite frankly, do not understand the rules as written. We, or others, if you prefer, can help with that, too.
As i understand it and use them (and to be fair, I have had to look it up and this is what I remember about the answer)
Most of the time, speaker intend to talk about effects (noun, results) from being affected (verb, change produced).
This reminds of JC's very controversial Dragon Breath ruling.
Quote from Blur:
Why would an attacker have to be immune to an effect he is not a target of? ;-)
In the same way that a blind person with a seizure disorder can be immune to the effects of the flashing lights in a Japanese cartoon, even though the cartoon isn’t specifically targeting that person.
Or, you know how your pee smells funny when you eat asparagus? The ability to smell that is genetic. So it’s the same way that a person who doesn’t have that genes never has to smell that smell, even though they were never the target.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Alright, I get it. So here is where the lines get blurred (hehe). The cartoon doesn't target that person specifically - it doesn't target anyone specifically, actually but some can be affected by it and some can't.
Same with Blur - despite the fact that the caster is the target, it's other creatures who are affected by it (disadvantage on roll) or not.
Hypothetical question: if we changed Blur so that it can be cast on one chosen creature within, say, 30 ft. range (as opposed to self), would you allow for it to be twinned?
If I was being cheeky, I'd say because the spell says so. Blur creates an illusion that an attacker must not only see but rely on that sight in order for it to matter. Blindsight and Truesight can bypass it completely, and for good reason. You can't be affected by a visual illusion you cannot see; much in the same way that you cannot cast spells with a Verbal component in an area subject to Silence. Technically, a character could just close their eyes to ignore Blur. But the end effect would be a wash, so there's no point.
That said, the same character could close their eyes to ignore the effect of Mirror Image; trading the randomness of hitting an illusion for disadvantage. And someone else can always find a way to give them the benefit of the Help action; offsetting the disadvantage.
And, of course, this also works in reverse. A functionally blind character gains no benefit from Faerie Fire.
What's the controversial ruling?
That the person imbued with it can target another creature with their new ability and thus Dragon Breath doesn't meet the requirement of Twinned Spell.
Oh, I thought you were alluding to something else. That's a consistent ruling on Crawford's part. It might stink, from a certain perspective, but it makes sense.
If you can't twin Ice Knife, then you can't twin Dragon's Breath.