Can Tasha's summons be twinned

[diplomancer]

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.


You call forth an X spirit. It manifests in an unoccupied space that you can see within range.

Is the spirit in range? If it isn't, it's odd to claim that it can be summoned. If it is, than it could be twinned, unless it is claimed that there is only 1 spirit in range, but then how could two different character summon two spirits?

On the other hand, seems awfully unbalanced if it CAN be twinned.

Any RAW or RAI guidance on that?

[PhantomSoul]

Is the spirit in range? If it isn't, it's odd to claim that it can be summoned. If it is, than it could be twinned, unless it is claimed that there is only 1 spirit in range, but then how could two different character summon two spirits?

On the other hand, seems awfully unbalanced if it CAN be twinned.

Any RAW or RAI guidance on that?

It creates a creature rather than targetting one, so it's expected to be out!

[stoutstien]

Those spells don't target a creature, they target a space, so no twinning fortunately.

[diplomancer]

It creates a creature rather than targetting one, so it's expected to be out!

Technically, it summons a creature, it doesn't create it.

[PhantomSoul]

Technically, it summons a creature, it doesn't create it.

Technically, it calls forth (summons?) a spirit and manifests (creates?) a corporeal form (body?) ;)

[Guy Lombard-O]

Technically, it summons a creature, it doesn't create it.

I think it also can effect more than 1 creature, in that the summons can wail on many creatures over an entire hour. So probably not.

Besides, you're 100% correct about the balance problem.

[chiefwaha]

In my opinion, RAW and RAI both seem to line up that you cannot twin the Tasha's summon spell.

[diplomancer]

I think it also can effect more than 1 creature, in that the summons can wail on many creatures over an entire hour. So probably not.

Well, for that matter, a Polymorphed creature can also wail on many creatures over an entire hour.


Besides, you're 100% correct about the balance problem.


And if there IS a balance issue, doesn't this sort of imply that, in the right circumstances at least, these spells are even stronger than Polymorph?

[Unoriginal]

And if there IS a balance issue, doesn't this sort of imply that, in the right circumstances at least, these spells are even stronger than Polymorph?

They certainly lack two of the downsides of Polymorph:

1) The PC and all their abilities you would normally cast Polymorph on can still contribute, rather than being replaced with a Beast statblock that lacks said abilities.

2) You don't have to worry about the Polymorph ending too soon and leaving you or your teammate(s) in melee with the foes they were handling. If the minion dies then they die.

Furthermore, adding a combatant on your side of the encounter is a huge force multiplier in 5e, as it both boost to your side's action economy and provide another targets the enemies need to consider.

[diplomancer]

They certainly lack two of the downsides of Polymorph:

1) The PC and all their abilities you would normally cast Polymorph on can still contribute, rather than being replaced with a Beast statblock that lacks said abilities.

2) You don't have to worry about the Polymorph ending too soon and leaving you or your teammate(s) in melee with the foes they were handling. If the minion dies then they die.

Furthermore, adding a combatant on your side of the encounter is a huge force multiplier in 5e, as it both boost to your side's action economy and provide another targets the enemies need to consider.

I agree, actually. Which makes me wonder. Polymorph is considered an amazingly powerful spell. And it is, at least for levels 7-8 when you first get it, though it falls of at later levels due to poor scaling of Beasts. But if the Tasha's summons are better, or even comparable, that means that they are a lot better than most people seem to give them credit for.

[Witty Username]

Summons do not target a creature, they target a point in space. Where the creature is summoned. Spells that target areas cannot be twinned.

[diplomancer]

Summons do not target a creature, they target a point in space. Where the creature is summoned. Spells that target areas cannot be twinned.

I've seen this claim twice now, but I'm not convinced. PHB states:


A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).

So, no "targeting a space", except as a point of origin for an "area of effect".

And area of effect is defined as:


Spells such as burning hands and cone of cold cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.

A spell's description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere

Nothing in the summons fits this description of "area of effect", and so you cannot say that the target is a point of origin for an area of effect, therefore the target is not a space. What am I missing?

[Shadean207]

Nothing in the summons fits this description of "area of effect", and so you cannot say that the target is a point of origin for an area of effect, therefore the target is not a space. What am I missing?

In an attempt to settle this, the wording for Metamagic: Twinned Spell is
"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 for Twinned Spell, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell's current level."

As for the summoning spells (I looked at Summon Elemental and Summon Aberration, for instance), they contain this sentence in them:
"It manifests in an unoccupied space that you can see within range."

With this, the spell targets the space, which specifically has to be unoccupied, i.e. can NOT contain a creature at the same time.
The spell is thus incapable of targeting a creature entirely and cannot be twinned.

I think this interaction is pretty clear cut, unless I massively misinterpreted something here.

[diplomancer]

In an attempt to settle this, the wording for Metamagic: Twinned Spell is
"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 for Twinned Spell, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell's current level."

As for the summoning spells (I looked at Summon Elemental and Summon Aberration, for instance), they contain this sentence in them:
"It manifests in an unoccupied space that you can see within range."

With this, the spell targets the space, which specifically has to be unoccupied, i.e. can NOT contain a creature at the same time.
The spell is thus incapable of targeting a creature entirely and cannot be twinned.

I think this interaction is pretty clear cut, unless I massively misinterpreted something here.

The creature that you call forth manifests in the space within range. But, at least according to the PHB section I've quoted, the space cannot be the target, as this is not an AoE spell.

[Shadean207]

The creature that you call forth manifests in the space within range. But, at least according to the PHB section I've quoted, the space cannot be the target, as this is not an AoE spell.

I can see where you are coming from, but in my understanding of the sequence of events, there is no creature at all when you begin to cast the spell. And that is when you would be able to twin it.
Additionally, following your logic, this spell has no target at all, since none is specified, neither creature nor object nor space.
The logical conclusion for me is that the space the summoned creature will occupy is the AoE regarding this spell.

Could you twin the Gate spell, for example?

[JackPhoenix]

The creature that you call forth manifests in the space within range. But, at least according to the PHB section I've quoted, the space cannot be the target, as this is not an AoE spell.

The part you've quoted doesn't say spells can't target anything not on the list, even if their description says otherwise. Dispel Magic, for example, allows you to target 'magical effect', which is not mentioned in the quote either.

[diplomancer]

I can see where you are coming from, but in my understanding of the sequence of events, there is no creature at all when you begin to cast the spell. And that is when you would be able to twin it.
Additionally, following your logic, this spell has no target at all, since none is specified, neither creature nor object nor space.
The logical conclusion for me is that the space the summoned creature will occupy is the AoE regarding this spell.

I think the most natural reading is that the target is the creature you summon. What complicates this more natural reading is the rule that says that the target must be within range. Which would create a very alarming picture of the world! For the spell to work, there'd have to be, all around everybody, spirits that escape all means of ordinary detection, all in the prime material plane, only manifesting once called forth by these spells. It's all just very odd.


Could you twin the Gate spell, for example?


Gate does create an area of effect, though, it even describes its shape and size.


The part you've quoted doesn't say spells can't target anything not on the list, even if their description says otherwise. Dispel Magic, for example, allows you to target 'magical effect', which is not mentioned in the quote either.

Hmm. Can you give me an example of a persistent magical effect that is, at the same time, an effect from a spell (because that's all Dispel Magic can affect), not a creature, not an object, and not the result of an AoE spell?

Because if there are no such examples, that'd be just a more elegant way to say that the target of dispel magic is either a creature, an object, or "the area of effect under the effect of a spell" i.e the same three targeting options in the targeting rules of the spellcasting chapter.

[Shadean207]

Gate does create an area of effect, though, it even describes its shape and size.


And this is where your logic contradicts itself. The gate has its dimensions specified, yes, but it appears, and I quote, in "an unoccupied space you can see within range". A very similar wording can be found in Blade of Disaster for example.

Now, don't get me wrong, I kind of agree with you: This does specify an area. So do all the summoning and conjuring spells I can think of. There really is no gaping hole in logic here, merely some slightly inconsistent wordings.
I don't think all the options as presented in the PHB are exclusive and exhaustive, otherwise there would be no such thing as the RAW question thread in this forum.
The most logical thing is for these spells to target the area they influence, whether by summoning a creature or a Gate.

A spell I would like to have your opinion on is Galder's Tower. What does it target? Does it target anything?

The general logic I am applying here is simply:
If there is no creature in a given space directly before beginning the casting of a spell, the spell can never have a creature as a target and must therefore target the space, or a point in that space.

Do you find any fault in that?

[Snails]

It is not apparent that a spell always has a Target, in the specific sense required by Twinning. The fact a spell has one, or perhaps more than one, "Target-like" variable(s) that is specified by the caster is not proof that one of them is the Target.

In this case, I do not claim to have a definitive answer. But I am not satisfied with the argument: since the summoned creature seems like our best guess, that must be the Target (as defined by Twinning).

[diplomancer]

It is not apparent that a spell always has a Target, in the specific sense required by Twinning. The fact a spell has one, or perhaps more than one, "Target-like" variable(s) that is specified by the caster is not proof that one of them is the Target.

In this case, I do not claim to have a definitive answer. But I am not satisfied with the argument: since the summoned creature seems like our best guess, that must be the Target (as defined by Twinning).

I don't claim to have a definitive answer either. And I'm perfectly fine with the answer "RAW is contradictory and unclear, RAI you can't", which is the one I'm leaning more and more to.

[PhantomSoul]

It is not apparent that a spell always has a Target, in the specific sense required by Twinning. The fact a spell has one, or perhaps more than one, "Target-like" variable(s) that is specified by the caster is not proof that one of them is the Target.

In this case, I do not claim to have a definitive answer. But I am not satisfied with the argument: since the summoned creature seems like our best guess, that must be the Target (as defined by Twinning).

The point/space seems like a much better guess to me (it's still the only one that strikes me as a clear reading), and even if you have it target the space that you choose AND the not-in-range creature (that may or may not have previously existed!), then it targets not only one creature (it's targetting a space, too).

[Witty Username]

I've seen this claim twice now, but I'm not convinced. PHB states:



So, no "targeting a space", except as a point of origin for an "area of effect".

And area of effect is defined as:



Nothing in the summons fits this description of "area of effect", and so you cannot say that the target is a point of origin for an area of effect, therefore the target is not a space. What am I missing?

Then where does the creature appear?

[diplomancer]

Then where does the creature appear?

The creature appears in a space, but this space does not fit any of the requirements of "point of origin of an area of effect". The creature you summon is not an area of effect.

[JackPhoenix]

Hmm. Can you give me an example of a persistent magical effect that is, at the same time, an effect from a spell (because that's all Dispel Magic can affect), not a creature, not an object, and not the result of an AoE spell?

Because if there are no such examples, that'd be just a more elegant way to say that the target of dispel magic is either a creature, an object, or "the area of effect under the effect of a spell" i.e the same three targeting options in the targeting rules of the spellcasting chapter.

Sound from Minor Illusion, Mage Hand, Unseen Servant. First 3 examples that came to mind. Though the magical effect doesn't have to come from a spell: Echo Knight's echo is a valid target for Dispel Magic, it just won't do anything, as there's no spell to end.

"Area of effect under the effect of a spell" is not the same as magical effect. Mirrage Arcane has an 1-square mile area of effect (which, too, is neither creature or an object), but targetting it with Dispel Magic would end just the Mirrage Arcane itself, not every spell within the area it covers.

[Mastikator]

The creature appears in a space, but this space does not fit any of the requirements of "point of origin of an area of effect". The creature you summon is not an area of effect.


You call forth a fey spirit. It manifests in an unoccupied space that you can see within range. This corporeal form uses the Fey Spirit stat block. When you cast the spell, choose a mood. Fuming, Mirthful, or Tricksy. The creature resembles a fey creature of your choice marked by the chosen mood, which determines one of the traits in its stat block. The creature disappears when it drops to 0 hit points or when the spell ends.

The creature is an ally to you and your companions. In combat, the creature shares your initiative count, but it takes its turn immediately after yours. It obeys your verbal commands (no action required by you). If you don’t issue any, it takes the Dodge action and uses its move to avoid danger.

Twinned must explicitly target one single creature only. Summon fey doesn't say it targets one creature. Therefore it can't be twinned. By RAW and by RAI. You can't twin a summon unless the summoning spell explicitly says it's targeting a single summoned creature.

[diplomancer]

Twinned must explicitly target one single creature only. Summon fey doesn't say it targets one creature. Therefore it can't be twinned. By RAW and by RAI. You can't twin a summon unless the summoning spell explicitly says it's targeting a single summoned creature.

Looks like there's going to be some implementation on adding a "Target" line to spells. Good. It will lay to rest all these arguments

[PhoenixPhyre]

Looks like there's going to be some implementation on adding a "Target" line to spells. Good. It will lay to rest all these arguments

Or more likely cause more, because the arguments haven't stopped now for a few decades in 3.5.

This kind of standardization, in my experience, only creates more loopholes and more incentive to nitpick and argue semantics. Cue Leia's voice "The more you tighten your grip, Lord [WotC], the more [rules arguments] will slip through your fingers."

[stoutstien]

Or more likely cause more, because the arguments haven't stopped now for a few decades in 3.5.

This kind of standardization, in my experience, only creates more loopholes and more incentive to nitpick and argue semantics. Cue Leia's voice "The more you tighten your grip, Lord [WotC], the more [rules arguments] will slip through your fingers."

Aye. If anything spells need to be less codified to prevent this.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Aye. If anything spells need to be less codified to prevent this.

The big thing that needs to happen is that the gaming culture needs to abandon the legalistic, RAW-focused, nitpick-the-wording mode. Nothing else will really do. Making the wording more legalistic just fuels that, and encourages people to be even more so. Relaxing the wording after the pattern is established (which happened much earlier) doesn't solve anything either.

[stoutstien]

The big thing that needs to happen is that the gaming culture needs to abandon the legalistic, RAW-focused, nitpick-the-wording mode. Nothing else will really do. Making the wording more legalistic just fuels that, and encourages people to be even more so. Relaxing the wording after the pattern is established (which happened much earlier) doesn't solve anything either.

Maybe I've been lucky but thats taking a sharp decline at the tables I've been at last five or six so years. There's also been more of these types of forms to scratch that itch for those that have interest in nitty gritty details. Occasionally we'll have a player cancel so we'll sit around and just have a gaming philosophical discussion over stuff but it's mostly in good fun. Couple weeks ago we were discussing the shield spell and how it could theoretically stop a ogre from hitting a wizard with a rock but does nothing if the ogre hits the rock with the wizard.
I saw it more frequently when I sat in covering down for Al tables but I stopped doing that because it it's frankly annoying.
There's definitely room in the hobby for all types of players that doesn't mean I have to put up with them

[PhoenixPhyre]

Maybe I've been lucky but thats taking a sharp decline at the tables I've been at last five or six so years. There's also been more of these types of forms to scratch that itch for those that have interest in nitty gritty details. Occasionally we'll have a player cancel so we'll sit around and just have a gaming philosophical discussion over stuff but it's mostly in good fun. Couple weeks ago we were discussing the shield spell and how it could theoretically stop a ogre from hitting a wizard with a rock but does nothing if the ogre hits the rock with the wizard.
I saw it more frequently when I sat in covering down for Al tables but I stopped doing that because it it's frankly annoying.
There's definitely room in the hobby for all types of players that doesn't mean I have to put up with them

I don't see it at my tables because I squash it whenever it appears. I clearly flag my setting and style as contrary to that, so I pre-filter out most of that type anyway. And I don't play AL for several reasons, that being one of them).

My issue is more around forums, because that's where the main residue (other than AL) of this attitude is. But forums are really noisy.

[Witty Username]

I never have problems with RAW at tables, as RAW is more about wider discourse. At a table the only RAW that has any meaning is that the DM is correct. But "ask your DM" is a short discussion, so RAW enters in as a tool to promote discussion.

For example, we can give a simple answer here by RAW. The area the spells effect takes place or the targets (creatures and objects of the summoned creature are the only applicable readings (and I believe RAI has been clarified by Crawford to be the area the creature appears as the target.

Now we at least have a starting point to discuss, whether it be the truth value of asserted RAW, the effectiveness of the rule in practice and a number of other points.

[diplomancer]

I never have problems with RAW at tables, as RAW is more about wider discourse. At a table the only RAW that has any meaning is that the DM is correct. But "ask your DM" is a short discussion, so RAW enters in as a tool to promote discussion.

For example, we can give a simple answer here by RAW. The area the spells effect takes place or the targets (creatures and objects of the summoned creature are the only applicable readings (and I believe RAI has been clarified by Crawford to be the area the creature appears as the target.

Now we at least have a starting point to discuss, whether it be the truth value of asserted RAW, the effectiveness of the rule in practice and a number of other points.

If you read that the targets of the Summon spells are the creatures attacked by the Summoned spirit (I, particularly, find this even weirder, in natural language, then saying the space is the target), then the damage the spirits cause are from magical attacks, and resistance does not apply.

[Witty Username]

Like I said, I view the area the creature enters is the target.
That being said, the RAW on targets is odd, for example some effects are defined as two separate targeting conditions like Dragon's breath. And RAI that a creature effected by an ongoing spell is a target of it.
Goodberry is apparently RAI intended to behave this way, due to the disciple of life rulings.
Personally I find it difficult to describe a creature that doesn't exist before or after the casting nonsensical. But that is more an implication that spells do not target themselves (otherwise no spell could be twinned as they would target an object at the very least) rather than straight RAW.

In short, the targeting rules of spells are poorly constructed, and difficult to read. Which is part of the problem.

As far as I can tell the closest reading is the spell doesn’t target any creatures or objects, so if it targets anything, it targets the space the creature enters. That being said by that view, it is probably fair to say the spell has no target. Possibly like Comune with nature or Augry.

[Hytheter]

Even if the summoned creature is the spell's target, twinned spell can't apply due to the fact there's no second creature within range for you to also target.