Thoughts on removing the restrictions from Twinned Spell?

[Aimeryan]

Answering the new survey got me to wondering on what the consequences of removing the restrictions on Metamagic: Twinned Spell would be.


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.

So, removing these:


targets only one creature
doesn't have a range of self
incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell's current level


My thoughts are, other than for number 2., I don't see a lot of problems. Casting two Fireballs saves you on action economy (like Action Surge does). Casting for 3 Sorcery Points saves you 2 Sorcery Points on casting another level 3 spell. Are those really problematic or out of balance for a Metamagic? Double Greater Invisibility to get past Concentration is fine, which is something you can't actually do without the Metamagic.

Being able to cast spells on others that are self only is a different kettle of fish. Anything particularly broken here?

[PhantomSoul]

The Self aspect is really just avoiding confusion/mistakes rather than a limitation in practice; if it's Self, there wasn't another possible target anyway! (So Twinning it would effectively do nothing except use up Sorcery Points.)

EDIT:
Arguably, the AoE aspect might not be that different; it's reasonable to think a Creature can't be affected by the same AoE twice in a Twinned Cast (re: general spell stacking rules without this explicitly stating a target would be affected by both instances), so this avoids dealing with that issue. Expanding the range probably isn't a big deal, especially given that.

[Lunali]

I don't have a problem with removing #3. Going beyond that greatly increases the potential damage per turn. Action economy is the primary limitation on all damage output. Also, allowing for twin fireballs allows the caster to only use one of their spell slots to cast two fireballs, if nothing else the saved slot could be converted into the points necessary to twin.

[Second Wind]

Arguably, the AoE aspect might not be that different; it's reasonable to think a Creature can't be affected by the same AoE twice in a Twinned Cast (re: general spell stacking rules without this explicitly stating a target would be affected by both instances), so this avoids dealing with that issue. Expanding the range probably isn't a big deal, especially given that.
That's the important thing for balance's sake. Casting two fireballs on the same targets for a single action is absurdly powerful. Casting one fireball that hits in two areas (but only hits each target once in the overlap area) is sometimes useful, but not overpowering.

[MaxWilson]

Casting two Fireballs saves you on action economy (like Action Surge does).... Anything particularly broken here?

Casting two Fireballs with Twin Spell is like upcasting Fireball to 11th (!) level.

No way.

The only restriction I'd remove is #3. It's just complexity for complexity's sake.

[ff7hero]

The only restriction I'd remove is #3. It's just complexity for complexity's sake.

How many targets would a Twinned Hold Person III have. I can think of arguments for 2, 3 or 4.

[strangebloke]

That's the important thing for balance's sake. Casting two fireballs on the same targets for a single action is absurdly powerful. Casting one fireball that hits in two areas (but only hits each target once in the overlap area) is sometimes useful, but not overpowering.

counterpoint but there is precedent for effects that can double available damage. Destructive Wrath from the tempest cleric and overchannel from the Evocation wizard. Granted that these abilities are limited in other ways but at the same time they don't use up a major class resource and they appear in classes that already have lots of other really strong features.

Basically what I'm saying is I'm not worried about the 5th level sorcerer breaking the game by double fireballing at level 5 and using up almost all their resources in a single turn. I get to say that because this was the rule I ran with in at least one of my campaigns and yeah it was strong but like. Not that strong.

[Gtdead]

Lifting the AoE restriction would make it way overpowered. It's not just Fireball, but control spells would go haywire. You could cast two Hypnotic Patterns on the same spot, which would equal enemies saving with disadvantage, for the low cost of 3 sorcery points.

I would like to see Magic Missiles and Scorching Ray work with twin but that change would bring Twinned EBs back, which I consider ridiculous.

[Aimeryan]

Casting two Fireballs with Twin Spell is like upcasting Fireball to 11th (!) level.

Hmm, I would say it is not much different from Action Surge, but then you are more likely to be limited with those. Fireball doesn't scale well, so I am not sure how much value I put in the argument, there. Hmm.

Would it be preferable to have the sole restriction be that a target cannot be affected by both spells rather than the restrictions we have now?

[PhantomSoul]

Would it be preferable to have the sole restriction be that a target cannot be affected by both spells rather than the restrictions we have now?

I'm kind of taking for granted that that's already true for not double-tapping a target (based on having the same spell effects twice not stacking; PHB 205 I think).

[MaxWilson]

How many targets would a Twinned Hold Person III have. I can think of arguments for 2, 3 or 4.

My answer:

"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)."

Therefore it has two targets (the original and the "second" added by Twin), therefore Twin is pointless because you can already have two targets from upcasting.

Do you disagree, and if so where?

[Mastikator]

Twinned is already the *strongest metamagic I don't see why any buff to Twinned Spell is at all justified.


*arguably, almost everyone always takes it asap, that says a lot

[Aimeryan]

Twinned is already the *strongest metamagic I don't see why any buff to Twinned Spell is at all justified.


*arguably, almost everyone always takes it asap, that says a lot

I would argue Subtle is the strongest, however, it doesn't matter much. I am of the opinion that Twinned could be stronger without upsetting balance. As it is, it is quite frustrating and that allowing it to work with most any spell (self spells would still be restricted, by natural consequence) would not actually empower it all that much (double Concentration buffs are probably still stronger in most cases).

That said, it may be that restricting it to only affect any one target once would be good.



I'm kind of taking for granted that that's already true for not double-tapping a target (based on having the same spell effects twice not stacking; PHB 205 I think).

As instantaneous effects the spells duration would not overlap. However, for spells with durations it would certainly be true that only one effect at any time would apply. Even here, though, spells that can be ended early by making a saving throw (like Confusion) would only have one of the spells ended early, causing the other to apply.

[strangebloke]

Twinned is already the *strongest metamagic I don't see why any buff to Twinned Spell is at all justified.


*arguably, almost everyone always takes it asap, that says a lot

To some extent I would argue this is crab bucket logic. Yes, Twinned is already one of the best metamagics in the class, but its also annoyingly limited and non-intuitive. Just because there are worse options doesn't mean we can't improve the good options, if the good options are also weak or non-intuitive.

I'd gladly talk about the other metamagic as well, but the real problem is here that creating a feature like metamagic requires that the spells themselves be written in a consistent way to begin with, which they aren't.

[ff7hero]

My answer:

"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)."

Therefore it has two targets (the original and the "second" added by Twin), therefore Twin is pointless because you can already have two targets from upcasting.

Do you disagree, and if so where?

I agree that's the RAWest answer. I wasn't advocating any specific reading, just pointing out that the restriction you mentioned wasn't solely "complexity for complexity's sake."

Even if all it does is prevent this question from slowing down the game, it has a purpose beyond complexity. More important than that, it saves people from picking it and then realizing later that their Twinned Hold Person III can't hit 4 targets (because most players won't read Twinned as closely as you and I are here).

[Kane0]

Sure, scrap the limitations and specify that a target can obly be subject to one twinned spell when cast. You could double up on fireballs even overlapping the areas but nobody would take damage twice.

[RSP]

To some extent I would argue this is crab bucket logic. Yes, Twinned is already one of the best metamagics in the class, but its also annoyingly limited and non-intuitive. Just because there are worse options doesn't mean we can't improve the good options, if the good options are also weak or non-intuitive.

I'd gladly talk about the other metamagic as well, but the real problem is here that creating a feature like metamagic requires that the spells themselves be written in a consistent way to begin with, which they aren't.

I’d prefer working on the “weaker” metamagics than removing limitations on the “better” ones. Making Extended work on any non-instantaneous spell (so two rounds of Shield, for instance), or Distant being able to extend the area of AoE’s to some degree (not necessarily double).

Specific to Twin, I’m in the camp of RAW you can only be under the effect of the same spell once, so you wouldn’t need to add that in, but so long as that’s applied, I don’t see a huge issue.

[Lunali]

How many targets would a Twinned Hold Person III have. I can think of arguments for 2, 3 or 4.

If you only remove #3, the answer is 2. The requirement that the spell only target a single enemy remains in effect.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Twinned is already one of the best metamagic choices that you can pick. IMO, it's fine as it is. I honestly don't find it very non-intuitive, and none of my players have ever complained about it; all four sorcerers that I've had at my table have picked it up as one of their first metamagic choices every single time.

On another note, I'll throw out that to double fireball requires 2 levels of Fighter, which puts you a whole spell level behind, which is already a cost all on it's own. Being able to do that at full caster progression is a little different.

As for Self-only spells... what would be the range on those if they were Twinned?

[Keravath]

Hmm, I would say it is not much different from Action Surge, but then you are more likely to be limited with those. Fireball doesn't scale well, so I am not sure how much value I put in the argument, there. Hmm.

Would it be preferable to have the sole restriction be that a target cannot be affected by both spells rather than the restrictions we have now?

In order to have action surge, a sorcerer has to invest in 2 levels of fighter AND the ability is available only once/short rest. Allowing twinned fireballs and other spells all the time is way overpowered. Even allowing a creature to only be affected by one of the fireballs effectively doubles the area of effect to two 20' radius areas simultaneously.

Nope. Twinned AoE spells are utterly broken if allowed on every round of combat by removing the restrictions on twinned spell (and fireball isn't the worst offender just the most obvious).

Some of the "broken" examples if you removed the restrictions on twinned:
- twin Wall of Force
- twin Forcecage
- twin sickening radiance
- twin bless rather than upcasting to affect 6 targets (same with bane)

etc

[PhantomSoul]

Nope. Twinned AoE spells are utterly broken if allowed on every round of combat by removing the restrictions on twinned spell (and fireball isn't the worst offender just the most obvious).

Control spells are definitely what I'd focus on for playtesting yeah. 20 panels for Wall of Force, doubled target area (and placements up to you) for Hypnotic Pattern, and (separately) maybe the question of what to do for things like Spiritual Weapon and whether duplicating summons is broken or very broken.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Control spells are definitely what I'd focus on for playtesting yeah. 20 panels for Wall of Force, doubled target area (and placements up to you) for Hypnotic Pattern, and (separately) maybe the question of what to do for things like Spiritual Weapon and whether duplicating summons is broken or very broken.

Oh man, I didn't even think about summons. Yeah, that's hilarious. And not in a good way.

[loki_ragnarock]

Answering the new survey got me to wondering on what the consequences of removing the restrictions on Metamagic: Twinned Spell would be.



So, removing these:


targets only one creature
doesn't have a range of self
incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell's current level


My thoughts are, other than for number 2., I don't see a lot of problems. Casting two Fireballs saves you on action economy (like Action Surge does). Casting for 3 Sorcery Points saves you 2 Sorcery Points on casting another level 3 spell. Are those really problematic or out of balance for a Metamagic? Double Greater Invisibility to get past Concentration is fine, which is something you can't actually do without the Metamagic.

Being able to cast spells on others that are self only is a different kettle of fish. Anything particularly broken here?

They get 12 spells known, and twinning things burns through sorcery points like mad.

It's fine. If anything it's finally living up to the cheque sorcerer's have been bouncing since day one.

[Aimeryan]

In order to have action surge, a sorcerer has to invest in 2 levels of fighter AND the ability is available only once/short rest. Allowing twinned fireballs and other spells all the time is way overpowered. Even allowing a creature to only be affected by one of the fireballs effectively doubles the area of effect to two 20' radius areas simultaneously.

With Twinned requiring 3 Sorcery Points for Fireball I don't think it would be 'all the time' at all. At level 6 you would be able to do it twice in a long rest, and no other Metamagic. You could of course start cannabalising Spell Slots, but you would then be left with less spells to cast in a long rest. At 9, three times. At 12, four times. Any spell of level greater than 3 can be used by Twinned less often.

Action Surge is once per short/long rest, so three uses per long rest on average. It does not use any Sorcery Points so other Metamagic could be used. You do lose two levels of Sorcerer, however.

I'm not actually sure which I prefer here, and I definitely do not see it as being wildly more frequent. Indeed, at lower levels, the frequency is less - and at higher levels, the frequency of your best spells being Twinned remains less. With a limitation on only being affected by one of the spells I definitely think Action Surge wins out here.

For your examples, you just listed things without explaining why, so are they really examples?

[RSP]

Action Surge is once per short/long rest, so three uses per long rest on average. It does not use any Sorcery Points so other Metamagic could be used. You do lose two levels of Sorcerer, however.


Action Surge can also target the same group with two fireballs, whereas Twin cannot (under these assumptions). In that way, AS is more effective.

[Gtdead]

Action surge is also capped by concentration. Twin allows to doublecast a spell with the same concentration. So while it works well with Fireball, it doesn't do anything for the majority of control spells.

[strangebloke]

I'm not saying it is necessarily a good idea, but dang, people really saying that sorcerer is going to be overpowered because double fireball/hypnotic pattern?

There are lots of abilities that allow a character to double their output for a round. Action surge is one. Destructive Wrath (tempest cleric) is another. Overchannel (evoker) is another still. All of these are tied to unique resources that don't have other uses. Twin spell is tied to its core resource, sorcery points, and is extremely resource intensive. Moreover, fighter, cleric, and wizard all are baseline stronger classes with more features and better proficiencies and spell lists.

I don't think that "forcing two hypnotic pattern saves in a row for half your sorcery points" is overpowered at sixth level and I doubt it becomes overpowered later on. Heck, I'm not even sure twinning hypnotic pattern like that would be a good idea, it'd be the cost of a third level spell to (essentially) force disadvantage on a third level spell.

Maybe I'm losing my mind here, but you all do realize that sorcerers are universally terrible right?

[Kuulvheysoon]

Sorcerers have many issues, no one is arguing that, I don't think.

Personally, I do not think that the Twin Spell metamagic is one of them. Their severe lack of spells known is their biggest issue imo, and some of the other metamagics could absolutely use a tweak.

[PhantomSoul]

Sorcerers have many issues, no one is arguing that, I don't think.

Personally, I do not think that the Twin Spell metamagic is one of them. Their severe lack of spells known is their biggest issue imo, and some of the other metamagics could absolutely use a tweak.

And "universally terrible" seems like a big jump! (Outclassed != terrible, and I'd still put them above some other classes because of how wildly strong spells [cantrips included] can be.)

[Gtdead]

Maybe I'm losing my mind here, but you all do realize that sorcerers are universally terrible right?

I think you need to elaborate on this one. Sorcerer is not the top caster, but terrible? Especially with the new tasha subclasses? I'd personally pick Sorcerer or a Sorcerer based multiclass over the majority of classes available.

[strangebloke]

Sorcerers have many issues, no one is arguing that, I don't think.

Personally, I do not think that the Twin Spell metamagic is one of them. Their severe lack of spells known is their biggest issue imo, and some of the other metamagics could absolutely use a tweak.
I agree, but I'm addressing the specific notion that double fireball would 'break' the game. As I said, I've literally allowed this in my own campaigns, and its powerful, but not game-breaking compared to things other classes can do.

And "universally terrible" seems like a big jump! (Outclassed != terrible, and I'd still put them above some other classes because of how wildly strong spells [cantrips included] can be.)
Let me put it like this: there's little reason to play a sorcerer compared with any other class. Even if something like a barbarian is technically worse, there are unique things they can do which makes it a popular class. The same can't really be said of a sorcerer, which is btw the most unpopular class to play in 5e.

I think you need to elaborate on this one. Sorcerer is not the top caster, but terrible? Especially with the new tasha subclasses? I'd personally pick Sorcerer or a Sorcerer based multiclass over the majority of classes available.

Sorcerer has a lot of synergy with Warlock and paladin which makes them good for multiclassing. The sorcerers main class feature, metamagic, is strong, its just not enough to compensate for all the other glaring weaknesses in their kit, which is why multiclassing makes so much sense for them. I too would pick a sorcadin or a coffeelock over most classes, but I'm not going to argue that this is indicative of Sorcerer being a good base class.

Multiclassing is the real reason not to allow this btw. Double fireballs is one thing on a level 8 dragon sorcerer, its another thing entirely on a coffee fiendlock

[PhantomSoul]

Let me put it like this: there's little reason to play a sorcerer compared with any other class. Even if something like a barbarian is technically worse, there are unique things they can do which makes it a popular class. The same can't really be said of a sorcerer, which is btw the most unpopular class to play in 5e.
(Emphasis mine)

I'd like to know where you get your numbers -- it doesn't match my experience, my perception of received wisdom (where Ranger fares far worse ironically), and it doesn't match the (admittedly incredibly faulty and barely worthwhile) D&D Beyond statistics (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/). The Sorcerer is often decried especially in specific comparisons (mainly with Wizards), but, uh, neither "terrible" nor "little reason to play a sorcerer compared with any other class" seems to be true (even with your acceptance of how well it multiclasses as an exception).

[strangebloke]

(Emphasis mine)

I'd like to know where you get your numbers -- it doesn't match my experience, my perception of received wisdom (where Ranger fares far worse ironically), and it doesn't match the (admittedly incredibly faulty and barely worthwhile) D&D Beyond statistics (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/). The Sorcerer is often decried especially in specific comparisons (mainly with Wizards), but, uh, neither "terrible" nor "little reason to play a sorcerer compared with any other class" seems to be true (even with your acceptance of how well it multiclasses as an exception).

second-least popular, my bad. Clearly this changes everything. :smalltongue:

Ranger has problems from a design perspective but I'll never understand how a character who can consistently get four attacks a round with any weapon by level five while also being a spellcaster is considered 'weak.'

There are some reasons to play a sorcerer, but from what I've seen they're mostly thematic than mechanical. I've never seen anyone go "I want to be a sorcerer who uses empower spell" for example.

[MaxWilson]

Ranger has problems from a design perspective but I'll never understand how a character who can consistently get four attacks a round with any weapon by level five while also being a spellcaster is considered 'weak.'

Would you mind unpacking that "four attacks per round with any weapon" bit? I can see how a Hunter with TWF or Crossbow Expert can get four attacks per round when enemies are standing close together (Extra Attack + Horde Breaker + bonus attack), but that only works with specific weapons, and only sometimes. What am I missing?

[PhantomSoul]

second-least popular, my bad. Clearly this changes everything. :smalltongue:

Ranger has problems from a design perspective but I'll never understand how a character who can consistently get four attacks a round with any weapon by level five while also being a spellcaster is considered 'weak.'

There are some reasons to play a sorcerer, but from what I've seen they're mostly thematic than mechanical. I've never seen anyone go "I want to be a sorcerer who uses empower spell" for example.

Empower spell? Nope. But Subtle or Twin? All the time.
(As for second-lowest, there's a huge gap between Druid [not Ranger, interestingly!] and Sorcerer, and Sorcerer is one of three pretty close together. I wouldn't put much stock beyond that given bad data collection decisions, though. For my groups, though? Way higher-ranked.) Either way, though, that very much doesn't address your original claim that they're "universally terrible", which also hasn't been supported by others so far. Disappointing compared to its main alternative [Wizards]? Sure. Lacking in Spells Known? Almost unanimously it seems. Unfortunately have Wild Magic as a consistently decried subclass? Very much so. Terrible? Nay. They're still good, probably as a big understatement. Just having magic gives you a big advantage, and even before Tasha's the Subclasses were generally giving things people liked. (I could see Tasha's ironically hurting Sorcerers, but mainly in terms of [a] reducing other Subclasses by comparison, and [b] reducing non-optimising dips motivated by Metamagics.)

[strangebloke]

Would you mind unpacking that "four attacks per round with any weapon" bit? I can see how a Hunter with TWF or Crossbow Expert can get four attacks per round when enemies are standing close together (Extra Attack + Horde Breaker + bonus attack), but that only works with specific weapons, and only sometimes. What am I missing?
You were 'missing' that I was speaking sloppily and off the cuff. I was trying to be forceful while using few words. This was a bit of a derail, after all. If I was taking the time to be more clear I would have said...

"Rangers can get an extra attack pretty frequently because of class features like dread ambusher and horde breaker. Classes that don't offer such a feature at third level usually offer some kind of resourceless damage enhancement. Almost none of these features require you to use a specific weapon or any kind of action economy, which leaves you free to get a fourth attack via one of the many features that allows you to get a bonus action attack. (even though GWM is inconsistent, DW is bad, and there aren't means of getting a BA attack for a few weapons like the longbow) Most people don't seem to consider these features when looking at the damage output of the class as a whole, nor do they factor in that this class is also a half-caster with a very good spell list. This leads to people evaluating them as weak despite them being very strong compared to lots of other classes."

Sorry for being so unclear. Probably just should have said "the ranger is badly designed and people know this, so they think its weak and doesn't have unique tricks, even though it definitely does."


Empower spell? Nope. But Subtle or Twin? All the time.
(As for second-lowest, there's a huge gap between Druid [not Ranger, interestingly!] and Sorcerer, and Sorcerer is one of three pretty close together. I wouldn't put much stock beyond that given bad data collection decisions, though. For my groups, though? Way higher-ranked.) Either way, though, that very much doesn't address your original claim that they're "universally terrible", which also hasn't been supported by others so far. Disappointing compared to its main alternative [Wizards]? Sure. Lacking in Spells Known? Almost unanimously it seems. Unfortunately have Wild Magic as a consistently decried subclass? Very much so. Terrible? Nay. They're still good, probably as a big understatement. Just having magic gives you a big advantage, and even before Tasha's the Subclasses were generally giving things people liked. (I could see Tasha's ironically hurting Sorcerers, but mainly in terms of [a] reducing other Subclasses by comparison, and [b] reducing non-optimising dips motivated by Metamagics.)

Building a character for no other reason that twinning one of a few buff/debuff spells seems pretty weird to me. I don't see the appeal, certainly not if its been done a few times in the group already.

[PhantomSoul]

Building a character for no other reason that twinning one of a few buff/debuff spells seems pretty weird to me. I don't see the appeal, certainly not if its been done a few times in the group already.

It's rather the opposite -- spells are great, and metamagic can let you do some fun stuff with some of them, plus subclass features offer a boost. You're not building "a twinner"; you're building a full-caster who can twin and/or subtle and/or quicken and/or do other things. I notice you recognise "half-caster with a very good spell list" as an advantage of the ranger... here we have a full caster with a very (very?) good spell list! This is hardly "universally terrible" and neither the internet nor my tables have normally suggested it is! :)

[DarknessEternal]

Twinned is already the *strongest metamagic I don't see why any buff to Twinned Spell is at all justified.


*arguably, almost everyone always takes it asap, that says a lot

I agree with everything this person says.

[strangebloke]

It's rather the opposite -- spells are great, and metamagic can let you do some fun stuff with some of them, plus subclass features offer a boost. You're not building "a twinner"; you're building a full-caster who can twin and/or subtle and/or quicken and/or do other things. I notice you recognise "half-caster with a very good spell list" as an advantage of the ranger... here we have a full caster with a very (very?) good spell list! This is hardly "universally terrible" and neither the internet nor my tables have normally suggested it is! :)

DND is inherently fun and I'm sure people do have fun with a full caster as well as the (very few) extra tricks sorcerers get. It's great that a few people you personally know enjoy it but, uh. Almost everyone on these forums at least considers it the worst class in the game.

[RSP]

Anecdotally, at various long and short term tables I’ve played at, there’s been no single-classed Sorcerers played by any players over the last 6+ years. The only multiclass Sorcerers were played by experienced players looking to optimize. I think new players just skip over them as Wizard’s are more recognizable and straight forward.

The class doesn’t measure up well to Wizards, which hurts its popularity, when comparing spells known, spell list, or spells cast per day. Warlocks offer a better suite of tailored options overall, while specializing in “high level spells per day.” So Sorcerers lose ground to those wanting to fill those roles and be a full caster.

I imagine the Ranger suffers similarly, losing out to Rogues or Fighters, who are better at skills or combat, respectively. However, the Ranger class has been pretty popular at tables I’ve played at, but I think that’s based off of either RP or it’s history in D&D.

Neither class is bad, but they suffer from comparison for those looking to play a certain archetype, which can generally be filled better by another class; with my experience being new players expect more out of the Ranger, while overlooking the Sorc. More experienced players seem to know what they want from the classes, and go in for dips.

Just my observations, though.

[Kane0]

Almost everyone on these forums at least considers it the worst class in the game.

Worth noting that worst doesnt necessaily mean bad, even the most egregious offenders of 5e arent on the same scale as AD&D or 3e

[PhantomSoul]

Worth noting that worst doesnt necessaily mean bad, even the most egregious offenders of 5e arent on the same scale as AD&D or 3e

And there are different kinds of bad/worse/worst; Sorcerer is "bad" because it's mostly (but not entirely) a subset-Wizard, not because it's actually bad (plays poorly, underperforms noticeably/crucially). It still plays well, it's just that Wizard will often do more (larger spell list that's basically a superset, more spells known&prepared by default, expandable spells known, also subclasses that may contribute). It's why I push back on "universally terrible"; Ranger is often decried for potency, while Sorcerer is often decried for being inferior to a specific comparison.

[strangebloke]

Worth noting that worst doesnt necessaily mean bad, even the most egregious offenders of 5e arent on the same scale as AD&D or 3e

Oh, agreed absolutely. I wouldn't say that its "pointless" like I would say about the 3.5 fighter. It does have a few bright points, and I've seen people enjoy them in the past. I just think that its not particularly worrisome to give them an overpowered gimmick like an expanded version of twin spell (though I think the future of sorcerer depends on having more features besides metamagic.)

[Kuulvheysoon]

Oh, agreed absolutely. I wouldn't say that its "pointless" like I would say about the 3.5 fighter. It does have a few bright points, and I've seen people enjoy them in the past. I just think that its not particularly worrisome to give them an overpowered gimmick like an expanded version of twin spell (though I think the future of sorcerer depends on having more features besides metamagic.)

Please, the 3.5E Fighter was salvageable and able to hit T3. Now, if we're talking about the CW Samurai, that's getting into the realm of pointless.

[MaxWilson]

DND is inherently fun and I'm sure people do have fun with a full caster as well as the (very few) extra tricks sorcerers get. It's great that a few people you personally know enjoy it but, uh. Almost everyone on these forums at least considers it the worst class in the game.

No, unfortunately that would be the Barbarian. At least sorcs get high-level spells. Barbs get Brutal Critical. [sigh]

[PhoenixPhyre]

Personally, the sorcerer as it stands[1] is right about where I'd like all the classes to be, power wise. If anything, the wizard (and other full casters) need to be brought down a bit. I'd say no to all of these.

I'd prefer if the sorcerer was the one with Arcane Recovery, making its niche be "I don't have as many spells, but I can cast more than most in a day", with the wizard being "I've got lots of spells, but have to make every slot count."

[1] it could use bonus spells for all the subclasses and a couple other QoL fixes.

[Aimeryan]

Just to reiterate, I don't find removing the restrictions to be a considerable buff. If you want double Fireball, well you can already get that (albeit, via multiclass). The strongest uses I find for Twinned is single-target Concentration buffs - removing the restrictions doesn't really change this for me. The biggest reason to remove the restrictions for me is because they just cause confusion and frustration without accomplishing much.

Does this mean I would never Twin Fireball if this was put in place? No, I would in certain situations. Does this represent a buff, then? Yep. Is it a significant buff? No, not as I see it.

With the proposal for a target to only be affected by one of the spells, even if they overlap, I really see this as a very minor buff but a lot easier to rule. I would put Action Surge considerably ahead unless using Concentration spells, which is largely what Twinned does already.

I am still weighing up double summons/minions; on one hand, the strongest use for summons/minions is when you can summon a lot of weaker ones that punch above their weight, for example, Animate Objects using 10 tiny objects. Doubling these would be even more damage. On the other hand, the best way to deal with this is to aoe them, and that would still work fine - in fact, even more value on the aoe. And really, there isn't much stopping you just summoning again when the first ones are dealt with anyway. Hmm.

[ff7hero]

Almost everyone on these forums at least considers it the worst class in the game.

I must have missed your poll, but I'd rank Ranger and Barbarian below Sorcerer without batting an eye.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Really, it depends on what you mean by "worst". I can think of three different ways to mean worst, each with a different answer for the worst class in the game.

Worst design in regards to subclass allotment: Rogue. 100%. First subclass level at 3rd isn't bad; bit on the late side, but that's typical for the more martial classes. But the second level waiting until 9th is absolutely atrocious and unforgiveable (imo). WotC admitted that they knew that most games fizzle out before 11th level, yet they gave a class a 6 level gap in their subclass features. And not even something like the wizard of cleric, but the Rogue. Utterly shameful.
Worst game design: Cleric. Hear me out. Clerics OP. They're purposefully built so, because durr healing class bad, make better so people pick it. :smallannoyed: Add that to the 1st level being a subclass level with a feature that can explicitly override the normal multiclassing rules that lock you out of heavy armor, and you get my nod of disapproval.
Worst design choice: Now, this one is a tie between Fighter, Monk and Warlock. I like the SR mechanic, but if you're going to do that, especially if the class relies on it to refuel their primary abilities, then make it convincing to the rest of the classes that they're needed. I've seen so many arguments on these forums and beyond about SRs that I don't think that I need to justify why I'm choosing this as a category.

[Kane0]

[1] it could use bonus spells for all the subclasses and a couple other QoL fixes.

Go all in on spell points, add a few spells unique to sorc, some kind of spontaneous ability to mimic spells like a per rest version of bardic spell stealing...

[loki_ragnarock]

No, unfortunately that would be the Barbarian. At least sorcs get high-level spells. Barbs get Brutal Critical. [sigh]


Personally, the sorcerer as it stands[1] is right about where I'd like all the classes to be, power wise. If anything, the wizard (and other full casters) need to be brought down a bit. I'd say no to all of these.

I'd prefer if the sorcerer was the one with Arcane Recovery, making its niche be "I don't have as many spells, but I can cast more than most in a day", with the wizard being "I've got lots of spells, but have to make every slot count."

[1] it could use bonus spells for all the subclasses and a couple other QoL fixes.

I disagree a bit with both of these.

It's possible to make a very powerful sorcerer. The part about the sorcerer I don't like is the unmentioned corollary; that it's very, shockingly easy to build a sorcerer that is actually useless. All the "system mastery" stuff they were trying to leave behind in 5e is present and accounted for in the sorcerer. Bad options abound. The good options are very good, but it's a bit of a mine field to get there unless you are reading a guide that tells you how to make a good sorcerer. Giving a series of caveats that require increasingly in depth readings of each spell on the list, going through them with a fine tooth comb to see if they are even compatible with *two* features you have... the whole thing is a terror for someone new to the game, or for someone (hi) who is looking for something that requires less intensive system mastery.

The high is... well, not *much* better than anyone else, and the exchange is playing a highly orthodox character. The lows are as low as it gets in 5e, and it's much easier for someone starting out to accidently wind up there. Brutal critical might be unexciting, but having doesn't have the potential to make you dead weight in a game running standard difficulty level.

I think a good way to fix that is to just let the few powers they do have do what they say on the tin; quicken spell lets you cast spells faster, twin spell lets you double a spell, etc. Or to triple their spells known so that the pitfalls are less pitfall and more speedbump.

[Aimeryan]

Go all in on spell points, add a few spells unique to sorc, some kind of spontaneous ability to mimic spells like a per rest version of bardic spell stealing...

Hah, almost paragraphing what I suggested in the survey.

[PhantomSoul]

The part about the sorcerer I don't like is the unmentioned corollary; that it's very, shockingly easy to build a sorcerer that is actually useless. All the "system mastery" stuff they were trying to leave behind in 5e is present and accounted for in the sorcerer. Bad options abound. ... the whole thing is a terror for someone new to the game, or for someone (hi) who is looking for something that requires less intensive system mastery.


There's been a lot of that when I've seen new (and even non-new) players go for the sorcerer... things like Quicken Spell vs. the per-Turn limitation rules... and some stuff could easily have been fixed by a simple little rules "reminder"/clarification bubble on the page with the feature (e.g. Quicken Spell). It turns what feels like a gotcha into something the player is expected to know/understand without needing mastery.

[strangebloke]

I think a good way to fix that is to just let the few powers they do have do what they say on the tin; quicken spell lets you cast spells faster, twin spell lets you double a spell, etc. Or to triple their spells known so that the pitfalls are less pitfall and more speedbump.

Yup. As it stands it's so non-intuitive. Quicken doesn't give you fast spells, it gives you a free action which you can use to dodge or disengage, sort of comparable to something like dash or disengage. Twin spell isn't about damage-dealing or AOE, its mostly about buffs and occasionally a doubled debuff. Extend spell doesn't really let you prepare in advance like you'd expect, its mostly useful for saving a few spell slots the next day. Extend Spell has some janky edge case applications with things like thunderclap, or maybe it doesn't, ask your DM.

Spells like hold person are actually not that synergistic with twin because you're better off upcasting them, but that also makes them good sorcerer spells.

It's a mess.

and yes, even if you do everything right, you're going to be pretty weak if your niche combos don't have an immediate application or you've run out of resources.