Can you cast Life Transference on yourself?

Question

The spell Life Transference says that you can deal 4d8 necrotic damage to yourself, then one creature within range, that you can see, regains twice this many hit points.

Is the caster of this spell a viable target? Could a wizard use this spell to effectively heal himself 4d8 points of damage (assuming he doesn't kill himself first)?

score 29 · Accepted Answer · edited Jun 16 '20 at 10:23

29

The intent is apparent from the first line of the spell description (NO!)

The first line does state (emphasis mine):

You sacrifice some of your health to mend another creature’s injuries.

This heavily implies that you are not eligible, but the mechanical description sentences that follow (see below) do not list a requirement such as that when actually choosing the recipient of the hit points.

Jeremy Crawford does reinforce the importance of that first line and that You should not heal yourself with Life Transference (emphasis mine.)

The first sentence of life transference expresses how the spell works: "You sacrifice some of your health to mend another creature's injuries." That's someone else getting healed, not you.

Physician, heal thyself?

The spell language seems to contradict itself. The second sentence describing the mechanics of the spell (Xanathar's, pp160) requires the following (emphasis mine):

You take 4d8 necrotic damage, and one creature of your choice that you can see within range regains a number of hit points equal to twice the necrotic damage you take.

The mechanical requirements per that sentence are that you take damage, and that you then choose one creature within 30' that you can see to regain hitpoints.

It does not state that it must be one other creature or that you can't choose yourself, so there really is no limitation here that precludes you taking the damage and receiving the hitpoints.

Self-Transference?

This is highly unlikely. Crawford has clarified that is not how the spell works, and this is most likely a problem with the wording of the spell in that second sentence.

We can take from the name Life Transference and the language of the first sentence to conclude that you are not supposed to be able to do this to yourself.

edited Jun 16 '20 at 10:23

Community

1

answered Jun 06 '18 at 18:06

NotArch

125,044
39
506
804

1

I really don't see how this is at all legit RAW. "Another" is, by definition, an other creature aka not you. You say "It does not state that it must be one other" but this is entirely not true. That is exactly what the word another means. – Rubiksmoose Jun 06 '18 at 18:09
2

@Rubiksmoose It's the difference between the language in the first line giving the general description of the spell and the language in the 2nd line giving the mechanical direction for it's use. – NotArch Jun 06 '18 at 18:10
15

All lines of spells are intended to be read mechanically. There is no flavor text in 5e. – Rubiksmoose Jun 06 '18 at 18:11
@Rubiksmoose I updated my language and have not referenced flavor (nor did I do so originally.) One sentence says one thing, another sentence says another. We can say that the second sentence references the first, but that isn't necessarily a correct way of seeing things (see the language in Mirror Image for confusion over mechanical direction.) – NotArch Jun 06 '18 at 18:16
Not just the first line... the actual name of the spell really makes it not a self-cast spell. English definitions anyway. – Slagmoth Jun 06 '18 at 18:34
@Slagmoth I fully agree, but I think (hope) my answer is clear in the intent of the spell vs the misconception based on the bad wording in the 2nd sentence. – NotArch Jun 06 '18 at 18:37
3

@Rubiksmoose So would you say Burning Hands requires that both your hands be empty? (Thumbs together, fingers separated) – Exempt-Medic Jun 06 '18 at 19:43
1

What makes it more complicated is that Jeremy Crawford has previously ruled that "Creature you can see" includes yourself. – reffu Jun 06 '18 at 19:45
4

@Medix2: RAW? Sure absolutely. – Rubiksmoose Jun 06 '18 at 19:48
For reference regarding Medix2 comparison: Does Burning Hands really require touching thumbs? – Cœur Jun 07 '18 at 03:09
@Medix2 Late to the party, but technically you could be holding something in your left hand, but touch your right hand's thumb to your left hand's thumb (even tip to knuckle), and spread the fingers on your right hand. Then you would satisfy the description of "thumbs touching and fingers spread" (since it doesn't say you need to have all the fingers spread: just "fingers"). – Gandalfmeansme Apr 18 '19 at 21:24
And the object in the hand holding something wouldn't be incinerated by the closed fingers since flame only shoots out of " a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips" (i.e. those on your right hand). – Gandalfmeansme Apr 18 '19 at 21:24
1

@Rubiksmoose so that means Shocking Grasp delivers a shock to the target whether you succeed on the attack roll or not? "Lightning springs from your hand to deliver a shock to a creature you try to touch." – Fax Aug 09 '19 at 01:21
1

@reffu not really, since the ruling he was making there was on an ability worded "a creature you can see" where this one is "another creature you can see" the 'other' modifier there does change thing – Andrew Sep 30 '21 at 13:25
@Fax Yes, the target is shocked whether you succeed on the attack roll or not. However, they are only damaged and lose their reaction if you succeed. – Kirt Mar 22 '22 at 21:31

PixelMaster · Answer 2 · 2018-06-06T22:01:31.083

15

No.

The spell description states:

You sacrifice some of your health to mend another creature’s injuries.

From your point of view, you yourself are not another creature. Therefore, you're not a valid target for the spell.

Jeremy Crawford, lead designer for dnd-5e, supports this point of view.

edited Jun 06 '18 at 22:01

answered Jun 06 '18 at 18:04

PixelMaster

26,124
21
118
209

1

@Viishnahn: In 5e there is no flavor text. – Rubiksmoose Jun 06 '18 at 18:12

score 15 · Answer 3 · edited Jun 16 '20 at 10:23

No, life transference only works to give HP to other creatures

You sacrifice some of your health to mend another creature’s injuries. You take 4d8 necrotic damage, and one creature of your choice that you can see within range regains a number of hit points equal to twice the necrotic damage you take.

In this case, the first sentence tells us that the spell transfers health from you to another creature. Another means:

different or distinct from the one first considered

Thus, it is saying that the spell works to transfer health only to other creatures not yourself.

The second sentence tells us that you can choose that creature from among creatures you can see. The fact that the second sentence does not repeat the restriction written in the first sentence does not mean that that sentence is now somehow invalid.

Spells are made to be read in their entirety and there is no flavor text in 5e spells. Everything is meant to be read as mechanically describing how the spell works. When read together (as the rules are designed to be), the spells form a complete thought about how the spell functions.

Jeremy Crawford agrees

Jeremy Crawford has confirmed this is the intended reading as well:

The first sentence of life transference expresses how the spell works: "You sacrifice some of your health to mend another creature's injuries." That's someone else getting healed, not you.