Twin Spell does not allow the spell to target the same creature with both shots while the fighter can put all of their attacks into one enemy, so that right there means that the sorcerer can't match what the fighter can do to a single target.  Also, you can't just compare sorcerer vs fighter, you need sorcerer vs every class to check actual accuracy.

For the thing about twinning Chromatic Orb, I meant total damage in a turn, not just at one target. The reason I compared them to Fighter is because they consistently stay above other classes throughout just about all the levels, except 1-2.

One fireball can easily outdamage a twinned Chromatic Orb (which honestly is a spell that does not get a good return on upcasting) if there's two or more targets in the radius.

Yeah, but I felt like that might get a little overkill with the damage comparison.

The problem is you're relying on sorcery points which are a limited resource. You're also comparing this to a single encounter.

Over the course of the adventuring day the sorcerer's slots and points will dwindle considerably and quickly. The fighter, on the other hand can deal their damage the same every combat no matter how many fights in a day. The comparison also is based only on damage output, but there is more to combat than that such as health and tactics. With the armour proficiency and much greater health pool the fighter can also tank more hits and last much longer. The sorcerer cannot tank hits and would rely on their magic, which they can run out of, to save themselves where they can. Again, a single combat this is fine but over the course of an adventuring day or a dungeon crawl they will be out-performed by any martial.

I've played in epic level campaigns (20th level, plus epic boons) as a full spellcaster and it was the fighter and barbarian who dealt more consistent damage overall. 

Spellcasters can do a lot of damage and can do far more overall - but they lack the consistency of a martial over multiple encounters and are resource-heavy. They're not meant to be compared in such a way: the classes serve different purposes.

Quote from Cyb3rM1nd >>

The problem is you're relying on sorcery points which are a limited resource. You're also comparing this to a single encounter.

Over the course of the adventuring day the sorcerer's slots and points will dwindle considerably and quickly. The fighter, on the other hand can deal their damage the same every combat no matter how many fights in a day. The comparison also is based only on damage output, but there is more to combat than that such as health and tactics. With the armour proficiency and much greater health pool the fighter can also tank more hits and last much longer. The sorcerer cannot tank hits and would rely on their magic, which they can run out of, to save themselves where they can. Again, a single combat this is fine but over the course of an adventuring day or a dungeon crawl they will be out-performed by any martial.

I've played in epic level campaigns (20th level, plus epic boons) as a full spellcaster and it was the fighter and barbarian who dealt more consistent damage overall. 

Spellcasters can do a lot of damage and can do far more overall - but they lack the consistency of a martial over multiple encounters and are resource-heavy. They're not meant to be compared in such a way: the classes serve different purposes.

 Yes, in a lot of ways, I can agree with this. Sorcerers are glass cannons that can nuke just about anything and wipe out high CR creatures by themselves, but they can't keep it up for long. They burn through their Sorcery Points like there's no tomorrow, and they can't take many hits because of that puny d6 hit die. While they have the most raw power of any class, they can only keep up that level of damage for so long before they run out of Points to twin spells with.

Quote from Cyb3rM1nd >>

The problem is you're relying on sorcery points which are a limited resource. You're also comparing this to a single encounter.

Over the course of the adventuring day the sorcerer's slots and points will dwindle considerably and quickly. The fighter, on the other hand can deal their damage the same every combat no matter how many fights in a day. The comparison also is based only on damage output, but there is more to combat than that such as health and tactics. With the armour proficiency and much greater health pool the fighter can also tank more hits and last much longer. The sorcerer cannot tank hits and would rely on their magic, which they can run out of, to save themselves where they can. Again, a single combat this is fine but over the course of an adventuring day or a dungeon crawl they will be out-performed by any martial.

I've played in epic level campaigns (20th level, plus epic boons) as a full spellcaster and it was the fighter and barbarian who dealt more consistent damage overall. 

Spellcasters can do a lot of damage and can do far more overall - but they lack the consistency of a martial over multiple encounters and are resource-heavy. They're not meant to be compared in such a way: the classes serve different purposes.

 And casters usually have many other options that they can do with their spells, too.

Quote from Cyb3rM1nd >>

The problem is you're relying on sorcery points which are a limited resource. You're also comparing this to a single encounter.

Over the course of the adventuring day the sorcerer's slots and points will dwindle considerably and quickly. The fighter, on the other hand can deal their damage the same every combat no matter how many fights in a day. The comparison also is based only on damage output, but there is more to combat than that such as health and tactics. With the armour proficiency and much greater health pool the fighter can also tank more hits and last much longer. The sorcerer cannot tank hits and would rely on their magic, which they can run out of, to save themselves where they can. Again, a single combat this is fine but over the course of an adventuring day or a dungeon crawl they will be out-performed by any martial.

I've played in epic level campaigns (20th level, plus epic boons) as a full spellcaster and it was the fighter and barbarian who dealt more consistent damage overall. 

Spellcasters can do a lot of damage and can do far more overall - but they lack the consistency of a martial over multiple encounters and are resource-heavy. They're not meant to be compared in such a way: the classes serve different purposes.

 I sometimes wonder if the gritty realism rules would make martials feel a bit better because casters wouldn't be getting those juicy spellslots replenished every night.

Maybe, but the martials wouldn't be getting their HP or many of their class abilities back every night, either.

Yes. The class is good. 

If you are looking to maximize your game impact, then the Sorcerer is the lower of the full casters.  The designers, I feel, were concern that the Font of Magic and Metamagic features could make them overpowered compare to the other classes.  The reality (again, my hypothesis) is that existing rules of the games help keep the class bounded. As a result, it feels like the class doesn't keep up with the level promotions of other full caster classes. 

Some things to consider:

1. Sorcerers have "Known Spells" for a cap.  This limits the number of spells the character can use at each level and it prevents the character from changing spells until they gain a new level. 
2. Per the Player's Handbook,  the number of "Known Spells" a Sorcerer has available is less than what the other full casters can have available. It should be noted, that some Sorcerer subclasses allow you to access more spells; but there are guidelines and limitations as to what those spells are and it doesn't keep up with what some other classes can have accessible for use. 
3. The Sorcerer class is not granted "Ritual Casting" as a feature.  This can offset the benefits that Font of Magic applies to class since the Sorcerer class must use a spell slot whenever it casts a spell, while other classes with "Ritual Casting" can conserve spell slots. 
   
   

There are still good features with the class and we can discuss the advantages.  I would say that at lower levels, the Sorcerer can equal or surpass the other full casters; but the Sorcerer class doesn't scale up as well as other class.  Changes in the campaign settings can impact the character (or Player's strategy) due the fact that "Known Spells" limits versatility with the character.  Last note, one must really plan out their character to ensure the maximize the benefits of the Metamagic options they have.  

With that said.  Sorcerer might be one of my favorite classes to play. The roleplaying options are fantastic and Metamagic allows you to be creative in your game play.  One just needs to do more planning and strategizing in building their character. 

sorcerer is a little more straight forward than wizards too.  You can lean into a theme, and then not get decision paralysis as to which spells you should prepare.  it just lacks the flexibility to have a spell for every situation.  You just have to be pretty smart with picking your loadout.

If being a good class means getting good results with little investment, then Sorcerer's a bad class since player choices have lotta impact over how it feels and plays. It's one of my favorite classes.

Ive been playing sorcerers since 5e came out and yeah it has some issues, but it's not bad or underpowered when it's played and built properly. It's not flexible like the wizard. The sorcerer is as specialist. They can do any 1 thing great and a second thing well enough and thats it. Wizards can do anything well with swapping out spells, sorcerers dont have that luxury. Metamagic is that makes them specialists, it allows you to maximize what your limited spells can do. Unlike most every other class, you HAVE to plan your spell adds and drops, ASI/feats, etc BEFORE you even start playing otherwise you run the risk of making mistakes that you can't roll back. 

sorcerer fanboy myself here but i do have some arguments going for it. firstly there 8 spells sorcerers get that wizards themselves don't get such as water walk, fire storm and chaos bolt obviously. It's proficiency in con save is nothing to be sniffed at and though they do have a limited number of spells known i think it just encourages you to lean into your characters theme which can be really fun especially with the awesome sub classes they get. the sub-classes themselves have a lot going for them apart from their epic thematics, though the ones in the PHB are a bit meh, the ones in xanathar's and especially tasha's with the lunar as well, are really incredible with great features and with expanded spell lists on 4 of them it eases up the strain you have(i am counting divine soul 1st level extra spell). with metamagic there is an argument that you could get it from the feat but not heightened spell and there is nothing like watching the DM's face drop a you tell them to re-roll the saving throw they nat 20'd. all in all sorcerers are a really thematic class with a fair bit going for them but if you were to outdamage say a fighter in a round or a single day then you have to do some tricky stuff but for most people the sorcerer should be far more versatile than just damage.