Twinning spell opposites

[Confused Dad]

One of my players claims that he could use the metamagic Twin Spell and cast Enlarge on one creature and Reduce on another since they are inverses of each other. I seem to recall that in previous editions that a caster could CAST the opposite of a prepared spell (bless/bane, heal/harm, enlarge/reduce), but I don't see that as a function of spell casting in 5e. Also, the RAW reading of Twin Spell is that it is the SAME spell (not an inverse) in any case. Is this remotely possible?

[Stygofthedump]

I allow it

[Galithar]

Enlarge/Reduce is ONE spell. I see no reason not to allow them to twin with one being enlarge and the other being reduce. Unless it completely breaks your campaign in half (which the worst you can do with this is some grapple shenanigans, or maybe throwing something that should be way too big to be thrown) there is a good reason to allow it (player fun) and no reason to stop it.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think the most official, rules-friendly interpretation would be "No", because Twinned Spell only lets you pick a second creature with the same casting, and neither Twinned Spell nor Enlarge/Reduce implies any method to have different effects or choices. In fact, once the creature is Enlarged/Reduced, you cannot change it to the other size option. This implies that it's a fairly frigid choice.

But the DM in me would be totally cool with it. There are better people to pick on when it comes to limiting versatility than a Sorcerer using a non-blasting spell. Punishing the Sorcerer for being creative is a good way to make your games a lot more boring.

[Galithar]

I disagree that not allowing different effects from the spell to target the two targets of a twinned spell is in line with the rules any more than allowing it.

Twinned spell simply says that you get to target a second creature in range with the same spell.

Now while I understand there is the disagreement in interpretation of "same spell" I personally find it very straight forward. I get to target Bob with Enlarge/Reduce AND I get to target Suzy with Enlarge/Reduce. I would say the rules support using Enlarge/Reduce on each of them according to the description of the spell block, but completely Independent of each other.

[Confused Dad]

The challenge is that he wants to use it on his familiar. Gnome Sorcerer/Warlock with a Pseudodragon familiar. Twin Enlarge Pseudodragon, reduce self, ride Pseudodragon.

[Spectrulus]

Which results in a tiny gnome on a small psuedodragon for a 2nd level slot and some sorcery points? Where's the harm in that? It's concentration too.

[Galithar]

Yeah 2 sorcery points and a second spell slot with concentration for 1 minute of flying?

The fly spell is about equal in resource cost for 10 minutes of faster flying.

[sophontteks]

I do not know what you mean by the same spell and opposite spell. The one spell is enlarge/reduce and the effect is that it makes the targeted creature larger or smaller. Twinning it would allow you to make two creatures larger or smaller. I don't see anything that restricts how the spell effects the two targeted creatures from there. RAW implies that there is a written rule restricting this, and there isn't one.

[Teaguethebean]

RAW it isn't allowed but Jeremy Crawford said he would allow a player to do it but I can see the knee jerk reaction but how is his combo overpowered. For the cost of the 2nd level slot and a twin it is granting a worse 3rd level spell. Remember you can just have a ranged attack hit the familiar and then there spell is wasted and they lost their familiar. In my opinion it breaks nothing.

[Damon_Tor]

One of my players claims that he could use the metamagic Twin Spell and cast Enlarge on one creature and Reduce on another since they are inverses of each other. I seem to recall that in previous editions that a caster could CAST the opposite of a prepared spell (bless/bane, heal/harm, enlarge/reduce), but I don't see that as a function of spell casting in 5e. Also, the RAW reading of Twin Spell is that it is the SAME spell (not an inverse) in any case. Is this remotely possible?

Enlarge and Reduce are the same spell, just with a different decision being made. Nothing about Twinned Spell implies you have to make the same decision for each target if there are such decisions to be made. There's no reason, for example, you couldn't twin Polymorph and make one guy into a T-Rex and the other guy into a chicken.

[Chronos]

There's nothing in Twin Spell that says you can use different parameters of the spell for different targets, and there's also nothing that says you can't, and so what you think happens depends on what you think the default meaning of "the same spell" is. It has nothing to do with spells being "reversible"; one could just as easily ask about polymorphing two creatures into different beasts, or using Enhance Ability on the bard's Charisma and the fighter's Strength.

[Zanthy1]

The challenge is that he wants to use it on his familiar. Gnome Sorcerer/Warlock with a Pseudodragon familiar. Twin Enlarge Pseudodragon, reduce self, ride Pseudodragon.

That is ADORABLE and also hilariously funny and I cannot believe I hadn't thought of it before myself. a 2nd level spell with sorcery points for 1 minute of flying on a Pseudodragon that also uses concentration is a lot of setup for actually not a huge payoff, so its not game breaking but is also super cool idea. I would 100% allow this.


However what you mentioned about opposites does not hold in 5e. If you have the Bane spell you do not also get the Bless spell for free. In 3.5 the Bane/Bless was not a you can cast either one, it was if one is cast, the other being cast would cancel out the first.

[Dalebert]

The challenge is that he wants to use it on his familiar. Gnome Sorcerer/Warlock with a Pseudodragon familiar. Twin Enlarge Pseudodragon, reduce self, ride Pseudodragon.

That's brilliant. Of course, he could've just made a 20 lb kobold warlock with an imp familiar and not even need to bother with that. Not that I know anyone who would do such a thing. *Ahem* <.< >.> >.>