D&D 5E Twinned Elemental Affinity

[MoonSong]

I think the errata is to control how potent the spell is against one target, not many targets. Before the errata, if an 18 CHA sorcerer cast scorching ray and directed all beams at the same target, that is +12 damage. That is significantly better than all other 1st level spells.

But it comes at the cost of ten known spells the other sorcerers get(or all of the fancy toys wizards have but sorcerers can't do anymore). Scorching ray is a 2nd level spell, and this happens only after 3rd level spells become available. without this stacking, dragon sorcerers are basically crippled.

 

[houser2112]

I think the errata is to control how potent the spell is against one target, not many targets. Before the errata, if an 18 CHA sorcerer cast scorching ray and directed all beams at the same target, that is +12 damage. That is significantly better than all other 1st level spells.

I'm aware of the intent, I'm just not a big fan of gamist rules. Let the sorcerer have nice toys, he certainly doesn't get very many of them.

 

[MG.0]

My common sense tells me that his draconic heritage makes his fire magic more potent no matter how many people he happens to hit with one particular casting of a spell. I hate this erratum.

I'm confused. Your reply sounds like you disagree with me, but the gist of your reply seems to agree. I think the elemental affinity should be applied to each target. Anything else makes no common sense. If rules make no sense (or only make sense on a meta level), they don't belong in the game, in my opinion.

 

[houser2112]

I'm confused. Your reply sounds like you disagree with me, but the gist of your reply seems to agree. I think the elemental affinity should be applied to each target. Anything else makes no common sense. If rules make no sense (or only make sense on a meta level), they don't belong in the game, in my opinion.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what I was thinking when I quoted you. I completely agree with you.