A few questions about Chain Spell

[Petrosian]

Book not in front of me...

But my STRONG recollection is that the example they used in chain in tnb was magic missile.

I have a MILD recollection that rays were specifically mentioned as well but this could easily be mistaken.

I never had a question about ray or magic missiles from the reading in tnb.

i will look later to see if i am mistaken.

to my mind the number on and two reasons for chain are...

1. The "massing" of several key spells... haste is the first but much more imoportant to me are GREATER MAGIC WEAPON and DISPEL MAGIC (the targetted version.) At 12th level, a chained 6th level spell slot GMW will vreate 13 +4 weapon/ammo-sets that last for 12 hours. That's a melee weapon, bow and arrows for every member of your 4 man party. A targetted dispel chained will give d20+10 rolls vs every magical effect on each of 13 enemies. A literal ruling would not make the secondary effects at -4, since the opposed roll is not a "save" but even with a Gm ruling it at -4 it still boils down to stripping the fighters of their potioned adders (haste, strengths, etc) in one swell foop.

2. Many saves = one more failure. When used with blindness and holdperson and the like, making the entire party save (at -4)will, in my experience, result in one more failure. This effectively doubles the spell impact. Kick in a recitation from a nearby friendly mage and you might get another.

All in all, chain is one of my favorite feats, quite potent both on the offensive side and the defense.

So, all in all, the worry about magic missile or rays is hardly relevent to the feat's potency, from my perspective.

 

[Caliban]

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

*shrug* Why don't you try reading the feat again?

It doesn't matter if it CAN affecta single target. The feat requires that the spell specify a single target. This is a very specific term in 3e.

Ray spells do not specify a Target. They have "Effect: Ray".

Magic Missile doesn't specify a single target. It specifies one or more targets.

 

[Al]

But my STRONG recollection is that the example they used in chain in tnb was magic missile.

I have the book in front of me, and Cause Fear is the example, not Magic Missile.

The feat requires that the spell specify a single target. This is a very specific term in 3e.

Whilst I would be inclined to agree with you, the problem with this interpretation is that in this event there are pitifully few spells that would be valid which deal direct damage. Indeed, the only ones I can think of are those which deal damage as a secondary effect of a save-or-die, such as Phantasmal Killer or Destruction. Even Ice Knife 'specifies' the effect as 'One icy missile'. Indeed, there are so few (I cannot think of any offhand) purely damage dealing spells that specify one target that I believe that a more liberal interpretation of the rules is required i.e. anything that *can only* affect one target (e.g.s Ice Knife, Disintegrate, Ray of Frost, Melf's Acid Arrow; but not Magic Missile and Elemental Orbs as they *can* affect multiple targets).

 

[AuraSeer]

Who says every metamagic feat needs to affect lots of spells? We all know that some feats are more useful than others. The list of applicable spells is one factor that determines usefulness.

Come to think of it, why do so many people assume that the feat's primary use is for dice-dealing damage spells? Chained Haste is your friend. Chained Polymorph Other is great either as an attack, or as a utility spell. (Need brute strength? Poof, all your fighters are Trolls. Need to adventure underwater? Poof, all the PCs are merpeople.)

Even with the limited applicability, the feat is still useful. I may take it for my own PC sorcerer at 15th level, and I don't think it'll affect a single one of his direct-damage spells.

 

[KarinsDad]

*shrug* Why don't you try reading the feat again?

It doesn't matter if it CAN affecta single target. The feat requires that the spell specify a single target. This is a very specific term in 3e.

Ray spells do not specify a Target. They have "Effect: Ray".

Magic Missile doesn't specify a single target. It specifies one or more targets.

The actual text is:

"You can chain any spell that specifies a single target and has a range greater than touch."

Your definition of the phrase "specifies a single target" is different than other people's.

Your definition precludes any spell description that does not have the word "Target:" in its choice of aiming the spell.

Nowhere in the rules does it state that this is a proper definition of the phrase "specifies a single target". It doesn't state anywhere that a single target effect like a ray does not qualify. It is still a single target and it is still specified that way by default.

Your definition precludes any spell description that does have the word "Target:" in its choice of aiming the spell, but allows the spell to be targeted at one or more targets.

Nowhere in the rules does it state that this is a proper definition of the phrase "specifies a single target". It doesn't state anywhere that a multiple target spell which can affect a single target, like Magic Missile, does not qualify.

You are pretending that your interpretation is somehow the only correct one, but you have yet to prove that in any way.

To many of us, a single target is a single target. If the spell can be cast on a single target and it has a range greater than touch, then it qualifies.

Ours too is an interpretation. But, it is no better or no worse an interpretation than your method.

Now, if you could point to a rule where the phrase "specifies a single target" has the definition that you prescribe to it, then you would be correct. But, I can give you an example where this should not hold up: Dispel Magic. It can be an area, or it can be a single target. Are you claiming that if you cast a Targeted Dispel, that just because a Dispel Magic can be cast as an Area Dispel, the fact that it does not specify only a single target disqualifies it for the Chain Spell feat? In fact, the Area portion of Dispel Magic is listed under "Target or Targets", whereas it should be listed under "Effect". Hmmmm.

You are already claiming that if you cast a Magic Missile at a single target, that it does not qualify. Is Dispel Magic any different than Magic Missile? If so, how?

 

[KarinsDad]

Come to think of it, why do so many people assume that the feat's primary use is for dice-dealing damage spells?

It is not that people assume that its primary use is for this, but they do assume that some of its use is for this.

1) The Chain Spell feat is directly derived from the Chained Lightning feat. However, with the stricter interpretation, there are extremely few dice-dealing damage spells that it would apply to.

2) The Chain Spell feat has explicit wording as to how to handle it with dice-dealing damage spells. Again, however, with the stricter interpretation, there are extremely few dice-dealing damage spells that it would apply to.

The point is that it makes little sense to create a feat whose partial reason d'etre by its own wording is to affect dice-dealing damage spells and then to drop most of those types of spells from the feat applicability. That just makes little sense. If a player expects the feat to affect most of his dice-dealing damage spells and then suddenly finds out that his DM is anal about the rules, a problem could ensue. Who needs that kind of headache in their game?

 

[AuraSeer]

You are pretending that your interpretation is somehow the only correct one, but you have yet to prove that in any way.

Except that email from the Sage that I posted. Then again, if you're one of those people who are rabidly opposed to the Sage, the Sage's words, and all things Sagish, I can see why you'd ignore that post.

To many of us, a single target is a single target. If the spell can be cast on a single target and it has a range greater than touch, then it qualifies.

If that's your interpretation, then I'll bring up the lone-kobold-hit-by-Fireball scenario again. The spell is affecting an area, but there's only one target in it, so your interpretation would make it Chainable in that circumstance.

When you get right down to it, a Ray is notionally just another kind of Area effect. It has a really long, thin area, whose line of effect is blocked by the first object it hits. As Area spells are unchainable, so Ray spells are unchainable.

You are already claiming that if you cast a Magic Missile at a single target, that it does not qualify. Is Dispel Magic any different than Magic Missile? If so, how?

I'd say no, Dispel Magic is no different, because it's not solely restricted to one target. That would IMO make a Chained Dispel illegal.
But that's just me.

 

[KarinsDad]

Except that email from the Sage that I posted. Then again, if you're one of those people who are rabidly opposed to the Sage, the Sage's words, and all things Sagish, I can see why you'd ignore that post.

To me, the Sage has no more meaning than you (i.e. just another person with their opinion).

He no longer even works at WotC and although his opinion held weight there when he did, it was in reality the Rules Committee that made the official decisions.

And, quite frankly, if they put this into the FAQ, that is the official rules and that is how I will run it unless my players ask for a house rule on it.

If that's your interpretation, then I'll bring up the lone-kobold-hit-by-Fireball scenario again. The spell is affecting an area, but there's only one target in it, so your interpretation would make it Chainable in that circumstance.

When you get right down to it, a Ray is notionally just another kind of Area effect. It has a really long, thin area, whose line of effect is blocked by the first object it hits. As Area spells are unchainable, so Ray spells are unchainable.

Semantics.

Area Effect spells target locations. Rays target a creature or object.

A Ray is identical to any ranged missile attack for example. It does not affect an area, it goes through an area. Just because some object happens to get in the way of the spell does not mean that you did not target it at a single opponent.

Just like Chained Lightning. It does not affect an area, it goes through an area. Opps.

Your entire argument precludes the only spell example we have of the exact same effect.

I'd say no, Dispel Magic is no different, because it's not solely restricted to one target. That would IMO make a Chained Dispel illegal.
But that's just me.

Yeah, that's a tough one isn't it?

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

There is no reasonable interpretation that should kick out Dispel Magic other than a very strict and literal one interpretation reading of the feat. On the other hand, a Targeted Dispel in reality is no different than a Hold Person. It is cast differently than an Area Dispel and the result is the same as any other targeted spell. You pick the target, you fire. Opps. Ditto for Rays.

 

[AuraSeer]

2) The Chain Spell feat has explicit wording as to how to handle it with dice-dealing damage spells. Again, however, with the stricter interpretation, there are extremely few dice-dealing damage spells that it would apply to.

So what? The rule has to be there, because there is at least one core spell to which it would apply. (Phantasmal Killer comes to mind.) The designers also knew that players and game companies are inventing new spells all the time, so they had to account for spells that aren't in the PH.

The point is that it makes little sense to create a feat whose partial reason d'etre by its own wording is to affect dice-dealing damage spells and then to drop most of those types of spells from the feat applicability. That just makes little sense.

Note the words that I underlined. "Partial reason," as in "not the whole reason." Removing some spells from the applicability list makes the feat less useful, but it's still not useless.

Maybe it's not a powergamer's choice, but then neither is Spell Thematics. Nobody is forcing you to take either feat if you don't think they're useful enough.

If a player expects the feat to affect most of his dice-dealing damage spells and then suddenly finds out that his DM is anal about the rules, a problem could ensue.

Well, the same kind of "problem" could happen if a player expects Quicken Spell to work for his sorcerer character. Or if somebody multiclasses as Sor/Wiz and expects to share spell lists and slots. People get the rules wrong all the time; if that causes such a huge problem IYC, your players may need an attitude adjustment.

 

[AuraSeer]

A Ray is identical to any ranged missile attack for example. It does not affect an area, it goes through an area. Just because some object happens to get in the way of the spell does not mean that you did not target it at a single opponent.

You just pointed out one of the biggest differences: targeted spells never miss. If there's an evil baby halfling across the room and on the other side of a melee battle, hiding under a table for 90% cover, I can cast Cause Fear on him and always hit. If I try the same thing with Disintegrate, I'm liable to hit one of the melee combatants or the table.

If Chain Spell were intended to be used for rays, don't you think it'd specify what happens to the ray attack roll? Would the attack roll suffer a penalty? Would the rays for secondary attacks originate from the caster, or from the primary target?

I think the wording of the feat is quite clear. The designers may not have explained it in terms suitable for somebody's non-D&D-playing Aunt Tillie, but as is, the meaning is obvious. If you absolutely refuse to accept that possibility, it looks to me like you're being stubborn for the sake of stubbornness, and I don't see much point in attempting to convince you.