He is the player not the DM. I have a feeling that he tried to use it in a game and the DM said no, so he has come here for reasons why the DM was wrong and why he should be allowed to do it. By explicitly stating he doesn't care about RAW it sounds as though he is trying to get an argument to present to the DM in order to get around RAW. That's why he didn't like my answer or any of the other answers saying no.
Yes, I realize that is probably the case. Since, however, the OP did not state being the player vs. the DM, I have approached it as if the OP is the DM asking for clarification -- since this is the DM forum.
To the OP, if Beardsinger is right, and you have come here to get us to side with you against your DM, or have fodder to use against your DM - you should not do this. The DM is the ultimate decision-maker regarding rules in your game. If you disagree with the DM, make a cogent and polite case for your side, ONCE, outside of game (never, ever, in the middle of a session -- it is unfair to everyone else to stop the action to argue a rule that will specifically benefit you). If the DM still says no, CASE CLOSED.
Do not come on here to get us to overrule your DM. WE can't. And we wouldn't even fi we could.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I'm saying from what I can see, giving the damage, resources, chance to miss (vs half dmg), chance to not jump, I'm just not seeing how it is OP. From a mechanical standpoint, it just doesn't average out to being that much damage, especially in comparison to any AoE that you empower. (keep in mind that what you said about twinning fireball isn't accurate, it wouldn't take 1 point, it would take 3, twin spell takes 1 point per level.)
You completely ignored my question, even though you quoted it. Let me repeat.
Twinning is not allowed under the rules for any spell that can hit multiple targets. Chaos Bolt falls under that umbrella, and it is normally not allowed.
On what basis would you argue that Twinning should be allowed for one, and only one, multi-target spell (Chaos Bolt) but not any others? Or are you arguing that ALL spells, including the multi-target ones specifically banned from Twinning under the rules, should be allowed to Twin? Are you arguing here that Twinning needs to be changed? Or just that you want Chaos Bolt, and only Chaos Bolt, to ignore Twinning rules?
If you are arguing that Twinning should work on all multi-target spells, that is clearly and obviously OP. Surely you can see this, even if it would take 3 sorcery points to twin Fireball instead of one (the # of sorc points doesn't negate the fact that a 5th level Sorc with a 3rd level Fireball twinned would be able to put out as much damage as an Ancient Dragon). Presumably, that is not what you are arguing, so correct me if I am wrong.
If you are arguing that only Chaos Bolt should be allowed to ignore the multi-target restriction, you haven't yet explained why Chaos Bolt should be the exception to all other multi-target spells. What's the basis for this exception?
"Sorcerers are underpowered" doesn't cut it as an explanation -- that would be an argument for letting Sorcerers Twin everything, not for letting Chaos Bolt ignore the Twinning restrictions.
Yeah, I did kind ignore what you said because you kind of ignored the whole premise of the post. I said specifically that I wasn't concerned with RAW but was looking for a valid reason why a twinned chaos bolt would be too powerful or otherwise detrimental to the game.
You then just said what RAW said and that rules are there for a reason, and then started to talk about fireball when this was only about chaos bolt. You then started to go off explaining how a twinned firebolt would work incorrectly.
He is the player not the DM. I have a feeling that he tried to use it in a game and the DM said no, so he has come here for reasons why the DM was wrong and why he should be allowed to do it. By explicitly stating he doesn't care about RAW it sounds as though he is trying to get an argument to present to the DM in order to get around RAW. That's why he didn't like my answer or any of the other answers saying no.
He is the player not the DM. I have a feeling that he tried to use it in a game and the DM said no, so he has come here for reasons why the DM was wrong and why he should be allowed to do it. By explicitly stating he doesn't care about RAW it sounds as though he is trying to get an argument to present to the DM in order to get around RAW. That's why he didn't like my answer or any of the other answers saying no.
Yes, I realize that is probably the case. Since, however, the OP did not state being the player vs. the DM, I have approached it as if the OP is the DM asking for clarification -- since this is the DM forum.
To the OP, if Beardsinger is right, and you have come here to get us to side with you against your DM, or have fodder to use against your DM - you should not do this. The DM is the ultimate decision-maker regarding rules in your game. If you disagree with the DM, make a cogent and polite case for your side, ONCE, outside of game (never, ever, in the middle of a session -- it is unfair to everyone else to stop the action to argue a rule that will specifically benefit you). If the DM still says no, CASE CLOSED.
Do not come on here to get us to overrule your DM. WE can't. And we wouldn't even fi we could.
If I was the player and trying to get people to side against the DM then why would I word the original post as asking for ways where this shouldn't be allowed because it was too strong or otherwise detrimental to game play?
It really seems like people hear kind of ignore what was actually writen in the post and assume a lot of stuff that wasn't.
It's easy to assume that the problem is "everyone else". Have you considered that you may not have asked the question in a way that would yield the response you are looking for?
Feel free to start over with a new prompt based on the feedback you've gotten here. Give examples of what you would consider a "valid" reason to disallow something. Be open to alternative combinations to achieve your end goal.
Is your hope to analyze this "specific" combination, or to find a way of boosting the Sorcerer class more generally? Many of the contributor's here would probably be more than happy to offer suggestions for what can augment the sorcerer class without introducing controversial rule bending.
The question you asked in my words was "Ignoring RAW, Why can't I do this?" That's not a rules question as you are telling us to ignore the rules. It's a homebrew question and should be in the homebrew thread. Are you asking us to invent reasons for why this wouldn't work? I gave you one - I don't allow the 2d8 to be re-rolled, only the d6, and your response was that I was playing the game wrong. If you ask for opinions and ideas and then insult the people who give you their ideas, you are not going to get the reactions you hoped for.
The reason as to why you couldn't do it with Chaos bolt is because you would have to allow it to more all multi-target spells. Perhaps there could be the distinction against AOE spells, like Fireball, but other multi target spells, like magic missile would be fair game. You would then have to ask what happens in that situation. Does the amount of targets double or do you get one more target with the spell? What about dragon's breath, which has a single target for the spell but can be used to hit multiple creatures? This also raises an argument for abilities that let you target multiple creatures with a single target spell, like being a death domain cleric with a necromancy cantrip. By making the acceptation for the single case, you have established that it is okay in other cases as well and creates a really slippery slope. So while it may not be broken for specifically chaos bolt it can be for other spells that would benefit from that ruling, because, to reiterate, by allowing a spell that targets more then one creature to be twin spelled you are allowing all spells that target more then one creature to be twin spelled.
As to Empower spell it does say that you can spend a sorcery point to do it up to your charisma mod, so that cap would apply to both castings together. So if I empower a twin spelled Chromatic orb and my charisma is 3, I have 3 dice rerolls between the 6d8 damage that I would be dealing.
The reason as to why you couldn't do it with Chaos bolt is because you would have to allow it to more all multi-target spells. Perhaps there could be the distinction against AOE spells, like Fireball, but other multi target spells, like magic missile would be fair game. You would then have to ask what happens in that situation. Does the amount of targets double or do you get one more target with the spell? What about dragon's breath, which has a single target for the spell but can be used to hit multiple creatures? This also raises an argument for abilities that let you target multiple creatures with a single target spell, like being a death domain cleric with a necromancy cantrip. By making the acceptation for the single case, you have established that it is okay in other cases as well and creates a really slippery slope. So while it may not be broken for specifically chaos bolt it can be for other spells that would benefit from that ruling, because, to reiterate, by allowing a spell that targets more then one creature to be twin spelled you are allowing all spells that target more then one creature to be twin spelled.
As to Empower spell it does say that you can spend a sorcery point to do it up to your charisma mod, so that cap would apply to both castings together. So if I empower a twin spelled Chromatic orb and my charisma is 3, I have 3 dice rerolls between the 6d8 damage that I would be dealing.
I'm not talking about the rule in general, I'm just talking about Chaos bolt. AOEs are pretty clearly overpowered if twinned. Chaos bolt and metas are the one unique thing sorcs have going for them so I thought letting them flex it a little would be interesting.
Empower does say "When you roll damage for a spell, you can spend 1 sorcery point" So this means that to use it on a twinned spell sounds like you would need to empower both rolls, but this is definitely a DM call kind of thing.
This is part of the reason why it seems like it would be reasonable. You'd have to spend 3 sorc points to twin and empower a level 1 spell, and that cost to gamble on getting jumps sounds very reasonable, especially if you compare it to just empowering and AoE.
It's easy to assume that the problem is "everyone else". Have you considered that you may not have asked the question in a way that would yield the response you are looking for?
Feel free to start over with a new prompt based on the feedback you've gotten here. Give examples of what you would consider a "valid" reason to disallow something. Be open to alternative combinations to achieve your end goal.
Is your hope to analyze this "specific" combination, or to find a way of boosting the Sorcerer class more generally? Many of the contributor's here would probably be more than happy to offer suggestions for what can augment the sorcerer class without introducing controversial rule bending.
I'm all for self evaluation but here I feel like I was as clear and concise as could be.
" I'm not really so concerned about peoples interpretation of the RAW. I'm looking for an actual reason why it would be overpowered or negatively impact the game."
My frustration with the responses is pretty much that all of them just told me what RAW says, or why the rules should be followed. Or to say how other spells if twinned are overpowered, when I am specifically talking about chaos bolt.
Examples would be math on how this is way out of line with other spells, or stuff like the example I gave of re-rolling bogging down combat.
The question you asked in my words was "Ignoring RAW, Why can't I do this?" That's not a rules question as you are telling us to ignore the rules. It's a homebrew question and should be in the homebrew thread. Are you asking us to invent reasons for why this wouldn't work? I gave you one - I don't allow the 2d8 to be re-rolled, only the d6, and your response was that I was playing the game wrong. If you ask for opinions and ideas and then insult the people who give you their ideas, you are not going to get the reactions you hoped for.
It's not "Ignoring RAW, Why can't I do this?", its "Ignoring RAW, why shouldn't this be allowed?"
"Are you asking us to invent reasons for why this wouldn't work?" No, like it says, I'm looking for reasons why it shouldn't be allowed other than RAW says so. Saying "because I don't allow it" isn't a reason it's just a statement.
The question you asked in my words was "Ignoring RAW, Why can't I do this?" That's not a rules question as you are telling us to ignore the rules. It's a homebrew question and should be in the homebrew thread. Are you asking us to invent reasons for why this wouldn't work? I gave you one - I don't allow the 2d8 to be re-rolled, only the d6, and your response was that I was playing the game wrong. If you ask for opinions and ideas and then insult the people who give you their ideas, you are not going to get the reactions you hoped for.
It's not "Ignoring RAW, Why can't I do this?", its "Ignoring RAW, why shouldn't this be allowed?"
"Are you asking us to invent reasons for why this wouldn't work?" No, like it says, I'm looking for reasons why it shouldn't be allowed other than RAW says so. Saying "because I don't allow it" isn't a reason it's just a statement.
What other reason do you need besides "RAW doesn't allow it" - what kind of alternative answer do you want/need?
I'm all for self evaluation but here I feel like I was as clear and concise as could be.
" I'm not really so concerned about peoples interpretation of the RAW. I'm looking for an actual reason why it would be overpowered or negatively impact the game."
My frustration with the responses is pretty much that all of them just told me what RAW says, or why the rules should be followed. Or to say how other spells if twinned are overpowered, when I am specifically talking about chaos bolt.
Examples would be math on how this is way out of line with other spells, or stuff like the example I gave of re-rolling bogging down combat.
Given the progression of the thread, there were several things you said later that would have been helpful in the original post. You may have been clear from the perspective of a casual player, but a lot of people here are very experienced and split hairs. "Context" is far more granular than "a PC in a game of D&D 5e". That much is obvious.
If the game were a solo game, or a group of 2-3, then there are justifications for empowering the players. If the game were high level, then modifications to low level spells would have minimal impact. If the player had some other trick they were planning on synergizing with this, then it could get out of control very fast. If the group has a mix of new and experienced players, then consistency is important.
Whether or not something is overpowered changes depending on group dynamics, campaign setting and span, and "with respect to what".
The "Interpretation" of RAW, and the set-in-stone "truth" of RAW, are two separate discussions. The RAI is an entirely different topic.
Given everything covered so far, I can give you three direct answers:
1) Obviously, it doesn't work with RAW. (Just reiterating this to be thorough)
2) In an archetypical game of D&D (party of 4, level 5-8, sandbox campaign), there isn't much risk in allowing Chaos Bolt to be twinned and heightened. It can target more than one creature, but 75% of the time, it won't. Twinning and heightening it probably results in less than a 45% chance of hitting a 3rd target and the SP cost is significant for the gain. However, Twinning heightened Chaos Bolt would allow the caster a <45% chance of hitting the same target twice with the same action by jumping the bounce of one back to the other target. This is partially and specifically what the exclusion of twinning AOEs is attempting to avoid.
3) The fact that Chaos Bolt is a Sorcerer specific spell does carry weight though. I like the idea of doubling down on class defining features. That said, I would not allow twinning for both the reason in (2) and the fact that it is an inelegant solution. I would rather give you a class feature comparable to Warlock's Agonizing Blast invocation that modifies Chaos Bolt directly, such as the previously mentioned mechanic that would let you shift one of the damage rolls by one step. That would directly improve the damage and the unique quality of Chaos Bolt without stepping on any toes, and save you sorcery points. That feature might be something that mirrors Shadow Sorcerer's Eyes of the Dark feature, for example:
Heart of Chaos
Starting at 1st level, you learn the Chaos Bolt spell, which doesn’t count against your number of sorcerer spells known. In addition, you can cast it by spending 1 sorcery point or by expending a spell slot. If you cast it with sorcery points, you can increase or decrease the value of a single rolled damage die by one, possibly causing the chaotic energy to leap to a new target.
This increases the jump chance from 1/8 to 1/3. With heighten, that only improves further. It also frees up a precious sorcerer spell slot.
This is, of course, with the assumption that all other players will have equal treatment and may receive similar enhancements, if requested.
It shouldn't be allowed for Chaos Bolt because there is no valid justification that anyone has presented, to explain why if you allowed it for Chaos Bolt, it wouldn't be allowed for every other multi-target spell in the game. Memnosyne's excellent analysis notwithstanding, I would rule, as a DM, that there is no basis for giving Chaos Bolt, as a spell, "special treatment," and therefore, either all similar spells would have to be Twinnable, or none would be, the none including Chaos Bolt. I do not like "special rules for just this case" and try to avoid them at my (virtual) table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Consider the fact that Chaos bolt already has potential for infinite damage (assuming you can chain it enough times). Twinning Chaos bolt gives you double the chance to get infinite damage. I know that is kind of abstract, so let me work with some real numbers here.
I know the chance of you rolling doubles is 1/64 or 1.5%. With twinned spell this number goes to a 3% chance. Now with empowering, lets assume that you are allowed to reroll the d8's, that your charisma is 16, and that your 3 rerolls can only be applied to a single one of the chaos bolts. That gives you an additional 3 tried to get the numbers to line up. That brings the total chance to jump from 1.5% to 7.8%. If you take elemental adapt for a damage type within the spell you can increase that chance even more by turning all 1s into 2s, assuming that the element aligns with your elemental adept, your chance of jumping becomes 10.2%. Sure that is a very specific build, but as long as you have sorcery points you have a 1 in 10 to jump. After you jump the first time, your chance of jumping again becomes 4% for each additional jump.
So, Assuming that you twin spell and empower spell and elemental adept, there is a 1/10 chance that you double your damage ON TOP OF your 1/20 chance to crit anyway. You would, with a 10% chance be doing 12 dice of damage, minimum 24 points, average* 64 points, max 112 points non-resistible damage between 2 creatures as a single action as a first level spell without a natural 20.
Edit: All of this calculated completely ignorant of subclass, race, and other dice rolling augmentations such as the homebrewed "Heart of Chaos" mentioned previous, while also assuming your charisma is 16.
*I did the lazy average where I added the max and minimum and divided by 2.
Consider the fact that Chaos bolt already has potential for infinite damage (assuming you can chain it enough times). Twinning Chaos bolt gives you double the chance to get infinite damage. I know that is kind of abstract, so let me work with some real numbers here.
I know the chance of you rolling doubles is 1/64 or 1.5%. With twinned spell this number goes to a 3% chance. Now with empowering, lets assume that you are allowed to reroll the d8's, that your charisma is 16, and that your 3 rerolls can only be applied to a single one of the chaos bolts. That gives you an additional 3 tried to get the numbers to line up. That brings the total chance to jump from 1.5% to 7.8%. If you take elemental adapt for a damage type within the spell you can increase that chance even more by turning all 1s into 2s, assuming that the element aligns with your elemental adept, your chance of jumping becomes 10.2%. Sure that is a very specific build, but as long as you have sorcery points you have a 1 in 10 to jump. After you jump the first time, your chance of jumping again becomes 4% for each additional jump.
So, Assuming that you twin spell and empower spell and elemental adept, there is a 1/10 chance that you double your damage ON TOP OF your 1/20 chance to crit anyway. You would, with a 10% chance be doing 12 dice of damage, minimum 24 points, average* 64 points, max 112 points non-resistible damage between 2 creatures as a single action as a first level spell without a natural 20.
Edit: All of this calculated completely ignorant of subclass, race, and other dice rolling augmentations such as the homebrewed "Heart of Chaos" mentioned previous, while also assuming your charisma is 16.
*I did the lazy average where I added the max and minimum and divided by 2.
The math is off on this.
-The chance to jump is 12.5% base with a 1.5% chance to jump a 2nd time. The jump % also happens to be roughly how much less average damage it does compared to other level 1 single target spells (the 1/64 would be to roll a specific set of doubles like two 5s) -Empower says "You must use the new rolls" so you can't just keep re-rolling.
You asked why it shouldn't be allowed, and many of us have given you a variety of reasons. It's pretty clear now that you aren't going to listen to anything we say, because you are already convinced it should be allowed, which begs the question of why ask at all?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
You are right. I did do some bad math. 1/64 would be the chance for a specific role, in reality it would be 8/64 which is 12.5% or with elemental adept a 14.2%. Even more likely then I calculated. I'm not going to run through all the math again, but the fact that the chance is even greater then I calculated to deal 24 points minimum of non-resistible damage with a first level spell is unreasonable.
If you have 4 d8's to role and 3 dice that you can role that is extra chances. If the dice are the same, it doesn't matter if you roll the same one 3 time or 3 dice once if the goal is to get two of the same roll.
edit: I did the math with the new numbers, It is at least a 20% chance to deal that much damage. 1/5.
Not really relevant anyway as the damage has to be a 2nd person.
The comparison would be with Ice Knife, another 1st level spell that affects 1+ people. Ignore crits, because that just complicates it.
The basics of Chaos Bolt is 2d8+1d6 + 1/8 chance of double damage. = 12.5 average damage per hit with 12.5% chance of bouncing for damage, which is about 14 points per casting.
The basics of ice knife is 1d10 on a hit, plus all within 5 ft save for 2d6. Assuming a hit for both Chaos and Ice, with a 50% damage reduction to chance of making the save, that is 9 points to main target, plus 3.5 to everyone within 5 ft. Assuming on average 2 people in range, that means damage is 16 total average damage per casting.
Ice knife would be the better spell, assuming there are 3 people grouped in 5ft cluster.
Neither spell is overpowered. Both are actually on the weak side because of spreading out the damage among multiple people. Better to do the magic missile all on one target 3d4+3=10.5 with no chance to miss and no chance to hit multiple people.
"However, Twinning heightened Chaos Bolt would allow the caster a <45% chance of hitting the same target twice with the same action by jumping the bounce of one back to the other target. This is partially and specifically what the exclusion of twinning AOEs is attempting to avoid."
The way Twin spell and chaos bolt are worded it doesn't sound like it works like that:
Twin: "you can spend a number of sorcery points equal to the spell's level to target a second creature" (1 cast, 2 targets) Chaos: "A creature can be targeted only once by each casting of this spell"
The point you made about RAW vs RAI is well taken though. It's obvious that the don't want to allow some loophole that would let some spell to be twinned that would be widely more powerful is some circumstance. I'm just not seeing anyway that Chaos bolt can be made to be exploited if it is allowed to be twinned yet.
"However, Twinning heightened Chaos Bolt would allow the caster a <45% chance of hitting the same target twice with the same action by jumping the bounce of one back to the other target. This is partially and specifically what the exclusion of twinning AOEs is attempting to avoid."
The way Twin spell and chaos bolt are worded it doesn't sound like it works like that:
Twin: "you can spend a number of sorcery points equal to the spell's level to target a second creature" (1 cast, 2 targets) Chaos: "A creature can be targeted only once by each casting of this spell"
Given that "interpretation of RAW", [ :) ], and the fine print of Chaos Bolt, I actually wouldn't have much issue with Chaos Bolt being twinned. With only 2 targets within 30ft of one another, twinning it ends up making it weaker than two separate castings. Even if you rolled doubles twice, it would fizzle out after hitting the first set of targets once.
By 11th level, it becomes more practical to Quicken Chaos Bolt and just chase it with a cantrip. (Or visa versa)
I would still discourage allowing it for the sake of Good Housekeeping, but in terms of power, as long as it can't affect the same target twice, I'd relent.
Yes, I realize that is probably the case. Since, however, the OP did not state being the player vs. the DM, I have approached it as if the OP is the DM asking for clarification -- since this is the DM forum.
To the OP, if Beardsinger is right, and you have come here to get us to side with you against your DM, or have fodder to use against your DM - you should not do this. The DM is the ultimate decision-maker regarding rules in your game. If you disagree with the DM, make a cogent and polite case for your side, ONCE, outside of game (never, ever, in the middle of a session -- it is unfair to everyone else to stop the action to argue a rule that will specifically benefit you). If the DM still says no, CASE CLOSED.
Do not come on here to get us to overrule your DM. WE can't. And we wouldn't even fi we could.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Yeah, I did kind ignore what you said because you kind of ignored the whole premise of the post.
I said specifically that I wasn't concerned with RAW but was looking for a valid reason why a twinned chaos bolt would be too powerful or otherwise detrimental to the game.
You then just said what RAW said and that rules are there for a reason, and then started to talk about fireball when this was only about chaos bolt.
You then started to go off explaining how a twinned firebolt would work incorrectly.
It's hypothetical
I am neither DM or player.
If I was the player and trying to get people to side against the DM then why would I word the original post as asking for ways where this shouldn't be allowed because it was too strong or otherwise detrimental to game play?
It really seems like people hear kind of ignore what was actually writen in the post and assume a lot of stuff that wasn't.
It's easy to assume that the problem is "everyone else". Have you considered that you may not have asked the question in a way that would yield the response you are looking for?
Feel free to start over with a new prompt based on the feedback you've gotten here. Give examples of what you would consider a "valid" reason to disallow something. Be open to alternative combinations to achieve your end goal.
Is your hope to analyze this "specific" combination, or to find a way of boosting the Sorcerer class more generally? Many of the contributor's here would probably be more than happy to offer suggestions for what can augment the sorcerer class without introducing controversial rule bending.
The question you asked in my words was "Ignoring RAW, Why can't I do this?" That's not a rules question as you are telling us to ignore the rules. It's a homebrew question and should be in the homebrew thread. Are you asking us to invent reasons for why this wouldn't work? I gave you one - I don't allow the 2d8 to be re-rolled, only the d6, and your response was that I was playing the game wrong. If you ask for opinions and ideas and then insult the people who give you their ideas, you are not going to get the reactions you hoped for.
The reason as to why you couldn't do it with Chaos bolt is because you would have to allow it to more all multi-target spells. Perhaps there could be the distinction against AOE spells, like Fireball, but other multi target spells, like magic missile would be fair game. You would then have to ask what happens in that situation. Does the amount of targets double or do you get one more target with the spell? What about dragon's breath, which has a single target for the spell but can be used to hit multiple creatures? This also raises an argument for abilities that let you target multiple creatures with a single target spell, like being a death domain cleric with a necromancy cantrip. By making the acceptation for the single case, you have established that it is okay in other cases as well and creates a really slippery slope. So while it may not be broken for specifically chaos bolt it can be for other spells that would benefit from that ruling, because, to reiterate, by allowing a spell that targets more then one creature to be twin spelled you are allowing all spells that target more then one creature to be twin spelled.
As to Empower spell it does say that you can spend a sorcery point to do it up to your charisma mod, so that cap would apply to both castings together. So if I empower a twin spelled Chromatic orb and my charisma is 3, I have 3 dice rerolls between the 6d8 damage that I would be dealing.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
I'm not talking about the rule in general, I'm just talking about Chaos bolt. AOEs are pretty clearly overpowered if twinned. Chaos bolt and metas are the one unique thing sorcs have going for them so I thought letting them flex it a little would be interesting.
Empower does say "When you roll damage for a spell, you can spend 1 sorcery point" So this means that to use it on a twinned spell sounds like you would need to empower both rolls, but this is definitely a DM call kind of thing.
This is part of the reason why it seems like it would be reasonable. You'd have to spend 3 sorc points to twin and empower a level 1 spell, and that cost to gamble on getting jumps sounds very reasonable, especially if you compare it to just empowering and AoE.
I'm all for self evaluation but here I feel like I was as clear and concise as could be.
" I'm not really so concerned about peoples interpretation of the RAW. I'm looking for an actual reason why it would be overpowered or negatively impact the game."
My frustration with the responses is pretty much that all of them just told me what RAW says, or why the rules should be followed. Or to say how other spells if twinned are overpowered, when I am specifically talking about chaos bolt.
Examples would be math on how this is way out of line with other spells, or stuff like the example I gave of re-rolling bogging down combat.
It's not "Ignoring RAW, Why can't I do this?", its "Ignoring RAW, why shouldn't this be allowed?"
"Are you asking us to invent reasons for why this wouldn't work?"
No, like it says, I'm looking for reasons why it shouldn't be allowed other than RAW says so. Saying "because I don't allow it" isn't a reason it's just a statement.
What other reason do you need besides "RAW doesn't allow it" - what kind of alternative answer do you want/need?
Given the progression of the thread, there were several things you said later that would have been helpful in the original post. You may have been clear from the perspective of a casual player, but a lot of people here are very experienced and split hairs. "Context" is far more granular than "a PC in a game of D&D 5e". That much is obvious.
If the game were a solo game, or a group of 2-3, then there are justifications for empowering the players.
If the game were high level, then modifications to low level spells would have minimal impact.
If the player had some other trick they were planning on synergizing with this, then it could get out of control very fast.
If the group has a mix of new and experienced players, then consistency is important.
Whether or not something is overpowered changes depending on group dynamics, campaign setting and span, and "with respect to what".
The "Interpretation" of RAW, and the set-in-stone "truth" of RAW, are two separate discussions. The RAI is an entirely different topic.
Given everything covered so far, I can give you three direct answers:
1) Obviously, it doesn't work with RAW. (Just reiterating this to be thorough)
2) In an archetypical game of D&D (party of 4, level 5-8, sandbox campaign), there isn't much risk in allowing Chaos Bolt to be twinned and heightened. It can target more than one creature, but 75% of the time, it won't. Twinning and heightening it probably results in less than a 45% chance of hitting a 3rd target and the SP cost is significant for the gain. However, Twinning heightened Chaos Bolt would allow the caster a <45% chance of hitting the same target twice with the same action by jumping the bounce of one back to the other target. This is partially and specifically what the exclusion of twinning AOEs is attempting to avoid.
3) The fact that Chaos Bolt is a Sorcerer specific spell does carry weight though. I like the idea of doubling down on class defining features. That said, I would not allow twinning for both the reason in (2) and the fact that it is an inelegant solution. I would rather give you a class feature comparable to Warlock's Agonizing Blast invocation that modifies Chaos Bolt directly, such as the previously mentioned mechanic that would let you shift one of the damage rolls by one step. That would directly improve the damage and the unique quality of Chaos Bolt without stepping on any toes, and save you sorcery points. That feature might be something that mirrors Shadow Sorcerer's Eyes of the Dark feature, for example:
This increases the jump chance from 1/8 to 1/3. With heighten, that only improves further. It also frees up a precious sorcerer spell slot.
This is, of course, with the assumption that all other players will have equal treatment and may receive similar enhancements, if requested.
It shouldn't be allowed for Chaos Bolt because there is no valid justification that anyone has presented, to explain why if you allowed it for Chaos Bolt, it wouldn't be allowed for every other multi-target spell in the game. Memnosyne's excellent analysis notwithstanding, I would rule, as a DM, that there is no basis for giving Chaos Bolt, as a spell, "special treatment," and therefore, either all similar spells would have to be Twinnable, or none would be, the none including Chaos Bolt. I do not like "special rules for just this case" and try to avoid them at my (virtual) table.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Consider the fact that Chaos bolt already has potential for infinite damage (assuming you can chain it enough times). Twinning Chaos bolt gives you double the chance to get infinite damage. I know that is kind of abstract, so let me work with some real numbers here.
I know the chance of you rolling doubles is 1/64 or 1.5%. With twinned spell this number goes to a 3% chance. Now with empowering, lets assume that you are allowed to reroll the d8's, that your charisma is 16, and that your 3 rerolls can only be applied to a single one of the chaos bolts. That gives you an additional 3 tried to get the numbers to line up. That brings the total chance to jump from 1.5% to 7.8%. If you take elemental adapt for a damage type within the spell you can increase that chance even more by turning all 1s into 2s, assuming that the element aligns with your elemental adept, your chance of jumping becomes 10.2%. Sure that is a very specific build, but as long as you have sorcery points you have a 1 in 10 to jump. After you jump the first time, your chance of jumping again becomes 4% for each additional jump.
So, Assuming that you twin spell and empower spell and elemental adept, there is a 1/10 chance that you double your damage ON TOP OF your 1/20 chance to crit anyway. You would, with a 10% chance be doing 12 dice of damage, minimum 24 points, average* 64 points, max 112 points non-resistible damage between 2 creatures as a single action as a first level spell without a natural 20.
Edit: All of this calculated completely ignorant of subclass, race, and other dice rolling augmentations such as the homebrewed "Heart of Chaos" mentioned previous, while also assuming your charisma is 16.
*I did the lazy average where I added the max and minimum and divided by 2.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
The math is off on this.
-The chance to jump is 12.5% base with a 1.5% chance to jump a 2nd time. The jump % also happens to be roughly how much less average damage it does compared to other level 1 single target spells (the 1/64 would be to roll a specific set of doubles like two 5s)
-Empower says "You must use the new rolls" so you can't just keep re-rolling.
You asked why it shouldn't be allowed, and many of us have given you a variety of reasons. It's pretty clear now that you aren't going to listen to anything we say, because you are already convinced it should be allowed, which begs the question of why ask at all?
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
You are right. I did do some bad math. 1/64 would be the chance for a specific role, in reality it would be 8/64 which is 12.5% or with elemental adept a 14.2%. Even more likely then I calculated. I'm not going to run through all the math again, but the fact that the chance is even greater then I calculated to deal 24 points minimum of non-resistible damage with a first level spell is unreasonable.
If you have 4 d8's to role and 3 dice that you can role that is extra chances. If the dice are the same, it doesn't matter if you roll the same one 3 time or 3 dice once if the goal is to get two of the same roll.
edit: I did the math with the new numbers, It is at least a 20% chance to deal that much damage. 1/5.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
Not really relevant anyway as the damage has to be a 2nd person.
The comparison would be with Ice Knife, another 1st level spell that affects 1+ people. Ignore crits, because that just complicates it.
The basics of Chaos Bolt is 2d8+1d6 + 1/8 chance of double damage. = 12.5 average damage per hit with 12.5% chance of bouncing for damage, which is about 14 points per casting.
The basics of ice knife is 1d10 on a hit, plus all within 5 ft save for 2d6. Assuming a hit for both Chaos and Ice, with a 50% damage reduction to chance of making the save, that is 9 points to main target, plus 3.5 to everyone within 5 ft. Assuming on average 2 people in range, that means damage is 16 total average damage per casting.
Ice knife would be the better spell, assuming there are 3 people grouped in 5ft cluster.
Neither spell is overpowered. Both are actually on the weak side because of spreading out the damage among multiple people. Better to do the magic missile all on one target 3d4+3=10.5 with no chance to miss and no chance to hit multiple people.
"However, Twinning heightened Chaos Bolt would allow the caster a <45% chance of hitting the same target twice with the same action by jumping the bounce of one back to the other target. This is partially and specifically what the exclusion of twinning AOEs is attempting to avoid."
The way Twin spell and chaos bolt are worded it doesn't sound like it works like that:
Twin: "you can spend a number of sorcery points equal to the spell's level to target a second creature" (1 cast, 2 targets)
Chaos: "A creature can be targeted only once by each casting of this spell"
The point you made about RAW vs RAI is well taken though.
It's obvious that the don't want to allow some loophole that would let some spell to be twinned that would be widely more powerful is some circumstance.
I'm just not seeing anyway that Chaos bolt can be made to be exploited if it is allowed to be twinned yet.
Given that "interpretation of RAW", [ :) ], and the fine print of Chaos Bolt, I actually wouldn't have much issue with Chaos Bolt being twinned. With only 2 targets within 30ft of one another, twinning it ends up making it weaker than two separate castings. Even if you rolled doubles twice, it would fizzle out after hitting the first set of targets once.
By 11th level, it becomes more practical to Quicken Chaos Bolt and just chase it with a cantrip. (Or visa versa)
I would still discourage allowing it for the sake of Good Housekeeping, but in terms of power, as long as it can't affect the same target twice, I'd relent.