A few questions about Chain Spell

[Xarlen]

Ah, yes, for a 6th level slot doing a liddle damage is grand. As aposed to, oh, BLADE BARRIER that I could hit *all* of them with, for more damage. Or, heck, I could just Heal one of them. Or for the same level, pull a Maximized Searing Light out of my butt and throw it.

And, the last time I checked, energy weapons CAN be. MAA is an energy missile.

 

[Caliban]

Ah, yes, for a 6th level slot doing a liddle damage is grand. As aposed to, oh, BLADE BARRIER that I could hit *all* of them with, for more damage. Or, heck, I could just Heal one of them. Or for the same level, pull a Maximized Searing Light out of my butt and throw it.

And, the last time I checked, energy weapons CAN be. MAA is an energy missile.

I'm pretty sure I didn't say it was definitely overpowered.

I'm almost certain I said it seemed a bit overpowered and that I would want to playtest it before I made up my mind.

So please chill out and stop trying to convert me.

 

[Xarlen]

Hey, I'm just trying to say that there aren't that many core Ray effects which would be overly abused (Which seems to have been the earlier opinon). Just because you're reconsidering doesn't mean that the others who were aposed Havn't come off their camp.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Here's the problem.

I deliberately fire off a chained disintegrate at a target (a rock, or a bug on the wall, or some henchmen) to one side of my real target, the BBEG. I choose a bunch of rocks on the opposite side of him which happen to get 90% cover from the BBEG.

1) What happens if the ray misses?
2) What happens if the ray hits cover before striking the primary target?
3) How many rays will hit the BBEG when they miss their prime target because he's serving as cover? What effect will they have?

 

[Xarlen]

If it misses, it misses. Spell fizzles. What happens if you shoot a disintegrate at someone, and it misses the ranged touch? Does it go over their shoulder and melt the wall?

I would rule that Chainspell doesn't work on innatimate objects. But, if going by the rules, and Disintegrate (A 9th level spell here, mind you) hits the cover, then hits the BBEG, then the DC is going to suck eggs, becuase it's -4 less. Considering a 6th level spell, that's going to put the base DC at 12. Not Very Impressive.

Follow the rules about cover. He gets a bonus to AC (When you're dealing with Ranged touch, you need a boost to AC). Considering how he's the BBEG, he's likely going to save. A Chained Disintegrate is just a way to thin the herd... Though why you're using it instead of a fireball...

Though, then again, I could see a chained disintegrate used more to clear large swaths of things. Hit one pillar, then use the arcs to take out a whole lot more.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

If ray spells can be chained, why even have a seperate Split ray feat?

Ah now I understand. because split ray is the sissyfied version of chain spell and doesn't have a level boost. Personally I think split ray is almost a waste of a feat, but since it doesn't boost the level of the spell it isn't terrible. Just maybe not worth a feat.

Personally what I really wish is that they came up with two chain spell feats, one meant for damage spells, one meant for more effect based spells like disinigrate, charm, and buffs etc. The damage based one would have an low level boost like one level, that way it would keep within the damage caps of spells while gaining the chain effect sorta like chain lighning. The effect based would keep maybe the 3 level boost, though I deffinetly think the -4 penalty should be reduced a bit.(though maybe not necessary in campaigns like FR with all the extra DC boosters)

And yes in this case ditch split ray.

 

[Pax]

lf rays can be chained, why even have a seperate Split ray feat?

Simple.

Chain Spell adds 3 levels to the affected spell.

Split Ray adds ZERO levels.

IOW, it's easier to be able to split a ray in two, than to CHAIN any spell at all.

The sameness of the wording, however, DOES support the assertation that the author's INTENT was to allow chained Ray and Missile spells -- the author, after all, used "specifies a single target" in the feat dealing expressly with Rays, so, it stands to reason that the intent THERE, is the same as the intent in Chain Spell: rays are legitimate subjects of said metamagick.

 

[Caliban]

The sameness of the wording, however, DOES support the assertation that the author's INTENT was to allow chained Ray and Missile spells -- the author, after all, used "specifies a single target" in the feat dealing expressly with Rays, so, it stands to reason that the intent THERE, is the same as the intent in Chain Spell: rays are legitimate subjects of said metamagick.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what I just said.

 

[Pax]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what I just said.

Yep, just voicing agreement/support.

Besides which, IMO, a Chained Melf's Acid Arrow shoudl be a classic example of a low-level spell that has been Chained: Primary target takes (if hit) 2d4 damage per "whack"; the secondaries (if subsequently hit) take 1d4 per "whack". The need to roll to hit with the primary simply means you need to roll for each secondary (IOW, you should make sure not to overuse the combination, or risk annoying the GM ... a dangerous thing to do! lol!).

But IMO, a Chain Melf'sAA would be a great thing to lob at a group of spellcasters -- the continuing damage being a big benefit in a combat with a mass of spellcasters on one side or the other (so if the PC's group is spellcaster-heavy, have a few 9th+ level NPC / enemy spelclatsers carry a Chain MAA around, and whack every spelclaster (likely every PC at all) with mild continuing damage; remember, what's good for hte goose (the PCs) is good for the gander (the NPCs)).