A few questions about Chain Spell

[AuraSeer]

The fastest Sage reply ever?

I sent an email to the Sage on Tuesday, and I've already gotten a response. Apparently he agrees with my original restrictive interpretation. Here it is, with the Sage's words in bold:

I have a question about the Chain Spell metamagic feat, from Tome & Blood.

The feat states that it can apply to "any spell that affects a single target, and has a range greater than touch."

I presume that this means spells whose descriptor block contains a "Target:" entry, saying "One creature" or equivalent. That is, it cannot apply to a ray spell, even though that ray may affect only one creature. Is this correct?

Correct (a ray is an effect, not a target).

Can't get much clearer than that, I guess.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Re: The fastest Sage reply ever?

I sent an email to the Sage on Tuesday, and I've already gotten a response. Apparently he agrees with my original restrictive interpretation. Here it is, with the Sage's words in bold:

Can't get much clearer than that, I guess.

Well then this gets my vote for the least playtested feat in the game.

Hey lets make a spell that chians things like chain lighting, it should only work for things with a singe target desriptor. Cool, idea. We don't need to palytest this one I'm sure there are tons of spells this can work for, and 3 levels sounds about right.

 

[Al]

You said it's moot to discuss whether Ray of Enfeeblement is chainable, because the save DC is low. I responded by pointing out that talking about a spell's legality is different than talking about its power. In passing, I showed that you were incorrect in assuming that the spell necessarily has a low DC.

Fair enough. I assumed that your objection was one of game balance, and freely admit that DCs for RoE can be high.

Actually, Greater Command has limited utility due to the "Save every round" limitation in it.

True, but since the DCs are very high compared to Chained Hold Person, this often gives the party fighters long enough to go round coup-de-gracing those who fail their save. Indeed, the DC for Greater Command is 8 points higher than for secondary targets of CHP.

Sorry but I do think 35% chance is an insubstantial %. The iconic fighter is the person who has eprhaps the worst chance of succeeding against it and he still gets 65% chance of success, so unless you fight collecitons of people whoose saves suck v your chain spell attacks, the 35% chance starts taking a nose dive. If that fighter was a barb raging, or had a decent wis, or iron will or some low level buff protections or a cloak of resistence etc, that % drops, if he was a target with good will saves that % plummets.

Well, for one, the iconic rogue is the worst person to succeed, but that's a side issue. For one, discussing ad nauseam the various ways of boosting the Will save is pointless, and I could simply regurgitate the standard DC-boosting suite (Fox's Cunning, Greater Spell Focus, fatespinners, archmagi blah blah blah). As for whether 35% is an insignificant amount, this is irreleveant. The fact that there are very few mass save-or-die type spells out there means that any feat allowing access to them is a worthwhile one. 35% of them failing is still pretty good: if you are facing a party of four, then on average one of the three secondary victims will fail: making this more useful than, say, Repeat or Twin in this instance.

 

[KarinsDad]

True, but since the DCs are very high compared to Chained Hold Person, this often gives the party fighters long enough to go round coup-de-gracing those who fail their save. Indeed, the DC for Greater Command is 8 points higher than for secondary targets of CHP.

Actually, it is 7 higher. 3 for the feat, 4 for the secondary effect.

In any case, what is going to be more debilitating in the long run?

Chained Hold Person where you only get 2 opponents out of 6 for the entire fight OR

Greater Command where you get 4 opponents out of 6, but 2 of those "wake up" in round 2, 1 "wakes up" in round 3, and 1 "wakes up" in round 4.

In the first case, you have taken 33% of the enemy out of the fight (shy of Dispels or Anti-Magic Fields).

In the second case, you have taken 67% of the enemy out of the fight for at least one round, but in order to CDG, your opponent must be helpless. And, CDG requires a full round action, so you have to be close to do it (typically), and there is a save.

It is also debatable whether Feigning Death (assuming a Sleep command is the same as a Die command) is considered helpless.


Personally, I think CHP is nearly as potent as GC, regardless of the save differential.

 

[Al]

Actually, it is 7 higher. 3 for the feat, 4 for the secondary effect.

Oops. Serves me right for posting late at night.

In the second case, you have taken 67% of the enemy out of the fight for at least one round, but in order to CDG, your opponent must be helpless. And, CDG requires a full round action, so you have to be close to do it (typically), and there is a save.

True, but your fighters can always ready actions; and with the Death Blow feat, a CDG is only a standard action. If your fighters are hasted, there is nothing to stop them from pulling off a CDG. As for the save, the DCs are typically such that it will be nigh impossible for the victims to make. Rogues CDGing add sneak attack (at least +5d6 by now) will achieve DCs approaching 40 (assuming a small, say, +1 Str mod and a minor magical weapon for DC 10+2d6+5d6(SA)+4(str/weapon)=38.5average). Fighters CDGing can probably achieve a similar DC (2d10+8(str)+4(weapon)+4(WS)+10=37average).

 

[Pax]

Iwould like to point out: excluding a Ray spell from the Chain effect is not supported by a literal, strict reading of the Chain Spell feat.

The Feat only works on spells that AFFECT a single target. It doesn't say the feat onlyworks for spells that have "Target: One Creature".

You oculd theoretically Chain a disintegrate spell, and wipe out a large number of pillars supporting a chamber or cavern roof, for example.

Or, yes, cast a Chain melf's acid arrow -- used normally, melf's acid arrow DOES "affect [only] a single target" ... and at the required range of "greater than touch", too.

As for 1/2 effect, I disagree as to that being a good idea. Yes, some spells won't involve a saving throw (beneficial ones), and won't involve dice of damage (buff spells perhaps). On those spells, Chain will be a "bargain" metamagick.

So?

On other spells, Chain will be a losing proposition. Chain Ice Dagger, for example -- at most, 5d4(cold) to primary target (with 1(cold) to the surrounding 8 squares), and 2d4(cold) (same 1(cold)-point burst) to each secondary target.

For a 4th level spell ... my response is "big deal" ... a Maximised Magic Missile will be competitive with that.

Remember, balance never needs to be PERFECT ... just FAIR.

 

[Saeviomagy]

A ray/magic projectile spell doesn't affect a single target. It creates an effect which affects a single target. There's a difference.

 

[Thanee]

But affecting a single target indirectly is still affecting a single target, or not?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Caliban]

But affecting a single target indirectly is still affecting a single target, or not?

Bye
Thanee

Indirectly doesn't cut it.

 

[Pax]

A ray/magic projectile spell doesn't affect a single target. It creates an effect which affects a single target. There's a difference.

Don't be obtuse. A Ray spell DOES, in fact, "affect a single target". So to many (but not all) Missile-effect spells.

How many targets can you hit with a Ray of Enfeeblement?

One.

How many targets can you affect with a Melf's Acid Arrow?

One.

IMO that's the defining difference. The feat never specifies it has to affect it's sole target DIRECTLY. Only that the spell must affect a single target, no more.

I see nothing wrong with a 5th-level slot being used for a Chain Melf's Acid Arrow. Nor a 4th level slot being used for a Chain Ray of Enfeeblement.