Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 1389512" data-attributes="member: 1465">Oh no, please don't be... this thread was one of the most interesting since quite a long time&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown&nbsp; &nbsp; :("&nbsp; data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" /> I try to add some more small considerations to my view...Twin Spell &quot;doubles&quot; a spell, if you Twin a damaging spell you are doing it to double the damage, what else? The fact that it counts as 2 separate spells and therefore allows for two saves makes the resulting damage closer to the average (smaller variance), but the average and the maximum are both doubled. The cost for doubling the damage is +4, and note that it is the same cost as using Repeat Spell, Energy Admixture and 2 x Empower Spell (when it was possible), which all double the average/max damage.If I cast an Empowered spell, I get +50% damage. If Empowering a Twin spell worked as you say, I get +50% damage on the single original spell but only +25% on the final. That's also why I don't think it is the right way.-Your point with Quicken is effectively correct, if you compare casting a normal spell and the same Quickened in the same round, you are getting the same result as with a Twin Spell but you are paying an extra slot of the base spell level. I know that it sounds a posthumous argument from me, but I really think the unbalanced feat in this in Quicken, which has too much a high cost at +4 and would not be overpowered if it was +3 or even +2 (although in 3.5 it's better because it also prevents AoO).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 1389512, member: 1465"] Oh no, please don't be... this thread was one of the most interesting since quite a long time :( I try to add some more small considerations to my view... Twin Spell "doubles" a spell, if you Twin a damaging spell you are doing it to double the damage, what else? The fact that it counts as 2 separate spells and therefore allows for two saves makes the resulting damage closer to the average (smaller variance), but the average and the maximum are both doubled. The cost for doubling the damage is +4, and note that it is the same cost as using Repeat Spell, Energy Admixture and 2 x Empower Spell (when it was possible), which all double the average/max damage. If I cast an Empowered spell, I get +50% damage. If Empowering a Twin spell worked as you say, I get +50% damage on the single original spell but only +25% on the final. That's also why I don't think it is the right way. - Your point with Quicken is effectively correct, if you compare casting a normal spell and the same Quickened in the same round, you are getting the same result as with a Twin Spell but you are paying an extra slot of the base spell level. I know that it sounds a posthumous argument from me, but I really think the unbalanced feat in this in Quicken, which has too much a high cost at +4 and would not be overpowered if it was +3 or even +2 (although in 3.5 it's better because it also prevents AoO). [/QUOTE]

Verification