A few questions about Chain Spell

[Caliban]

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.

Exactly.

Nowhere in the rules does it state that this is a proper definition of the phrase "specifies a single target".

Read the PHB lately? Specifically the section on aiming and targetting spells?

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.

Ray doesn't specify a target. Target is a defined term in 3e.

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.

Exactly. They don't specify a single target. They specify that it can affect multiple targets. .

Nowhere in the rules does it state that this is a proper definition of the phrase "specifies a single target".

If it allows more than one target, then it's not specifying a single target, now is it?

It doesn't state anywhere that a multiple target spell which can affect a single target, like Magic Missile, does not qualify.

Magic Missile doesn't specify a single target, now does it?

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

When you can prove that "specify a single target" actually means "specifies one or more targets" I might agree with you. Until then, it seems pretty clear to me.

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 the feat only required that the spell "can be cast on a single target" then I might agree with you. However, it says that it must specify a single target. To me, the phrase"must specify" equivalent to "must require". I don't see how you can read it any other way and still have it make sense in that context.

Having a single target be a possibility is not nearly the same as requiring a single target.

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

Since you keep trying to ignore the fact that the says the spell must specify a single target, I think your interpretation is worse.

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.

[edit: reread the Dispel Magic spell and changed my mind]

It can be cast on more than one form. One form specifies a Target, another specifies Area.

If you cast it in the form that specifies a single target, it would seem to be a valid spell for Chaining. If you don't, it can't be chained.

Magic missile doesn't have more than one form of the spell. It's always creates the same number of missles (i.e. you can't choose to have it generate less missiles), and can always affect multiple targets.

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?

See above.

 

[Thanee]

Darn, then there are actually not many spells you can use Chain Spell with... and most of them are beneficial!

I wonder if that was really the intent of this feat.

Bye
Thanee

 

[KarinsDad]

[edit: reread the Dispel Magic spell and changed my mind]

It can be cast on more than one form. One form specifies a Target, another specifies Area.

If you cast it in the form that specifies a single target, it would seem to be a valid spell for Chaining. If you don't, it can't be chained.

Ah, but it is interesting that the Area Effect portion is listed in the Targets: portion. Unless that is a typo, a strict interpretation of the feat would disallow it (according to a only single target spells are allowed interpretation).

Magic missile doesn't have more than one form of the spell. It's always creates the same number of missles (i.e. you can't choose to have it generate less missiles), and can always affect multiple targets.

Again, interpretation. One or more targets includes the subset of one target.

You are interpreting that "specifies a single target" must mean spells that "specifies a single target and only a single target" as opposed to spells that "specify a single target as an option".

That is totally interpretive in nature. If the feat stated:

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

then I could more readily understand that your interpretation might be more valid. But, there are two ways to interpret that sentence as written.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Darn, then there are actually not many spells you can use Chain Spell with... and most of them are beneficial!

I wonder if that was really the intent of this feat.

Bye
Thanee

That's my problem with the narrow interpretation of this feat. When I wonder if that was the intent, I say I really doubt it. It seems odd to me that they would invent a feat, whoose 1st described purpose, and the obvious application thanks to the one and only chain spell in the game, only would apply to a couple spells.

IMO, they either meant non-area of effect, mass spells, when they said specifies a single target, or they just didn't bother to look through the book to see what damaging spells effect line"single target" would apply to. Either way it was incredibly sloppy. This feat is high on my list of feats that need a rewrite.

 

[Caliban]

Ah, but it is interesting that the Area Effect portion is listed in the Targets: portion. Unless that is a typo, a strict interpretation of the feat would disallow it (according to a only single target spells are allowed interpretation).

It's really not that interesting. Read the text of the spell, and it is clear that the spell has more than one form it can be cast in.

Two versions of the spell specifie a single target (an item or a person). One version of the spell specifies an area.

If you cast one of the versions that specifie a single target, it can be chained. If you cast the area version, it cannot be. It's not that complicated.

If you want to be anal retentative about it, then Dispel Magic can't be chained. I really don't have a problem with that.

Again, interpretation. One or more targets includes the subset of one target.

So? It very clearly does not specify a single target. It allows multiple targets. Therefore it's not a valid spell for the feat.

You are interpreting that "specifies a single target" must mean spells that "specifies a single target and only a single target" as opposed to spells that "specify a single target as an option".

Pretty much, since that's what it says.

That is totally interpretive in nature. If the feat stated:

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

then I could more readily understand that your interpretation might be more valid. But, there are two ways to interpret that sentence as written.

*shrug* I disagree. Your interpretation requires you to add several words to the sentence. Mine works fine as it is.

In any case, it should be absolutely clear that Ray spells cannot be chained, because they do not specify a target at all. Target is a defined term in 3e, and Ray spells do not have a target. They create a Ray, which you can then direct at someone or something. You don't target them in the sense used in the spellcasting section of the PHB.

 

[Al]

Proof!

It's not often (believe it or no) that I would name a reply something as presumptious as proof, but I believe I've found the crucial piece of text to justify KarinsDad's, Shard O Glase's and my interpretation (i.e. rays okay) and torpedoeing the AuraSeer/Caliban line.

Read Split Ray (T&B, p.42)

Now, this is often overlooked, and I would never take it as a feat, but for arbitrating on Chain Spell, it's crucial.

You can split spells that specify a single target and make a ranged touch attack...

This would almost certainly indicates that rays (and other ranged-touch attacks) are a subsection of the 'specify a single target' family of spell.

Since it is fairly obvious that this feat affects Rays (hence the name), it would be preposterous to presume therefore that the descriptive text precludes rays being used: hence, the only valid interpretation is that rays 'specify a single target'. That they fall into the subcategory of also 'requiring a ranged touch attack' does not exclude them from 'specifying a single target'. Once this is accepted, it is a small logical step to realise that rays are affected by Chain Spell.

I rest my case...

 

[KarinsDad]

You just pointed out one of the biggest differences: targeted spells never miss.

Targeted spells can miss or fail as well. The circumstances are possibly different (possibly the same):

1) Out of range.
2) Targeting Mirror Image.
3) Targeting into Globe of Invulnerability.
4) Targeting the wrong type of creature (e.g. Undead with Stunning spell).

I think what you were trying to say is that targeted spells do not have a to hit roll.

And actually, I will concede the point concerning Ray spells. The phrase "specify a single target" cannot apply to Rays since Rays are Effects and an Effect designates location instead of target.

However, I still think that target spells that allow for a single target, even if they also allow for multiple targets, should be allowed.

 

[KarinsDad]

*shrug* I disagree. Your interpretation requires you to add several words to the sentence. Mine works fine as it is.

Actually, it does not.

Either interpretation works fine with the words that are there. If you cannot understand that, well, *shrug*.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Re: Proof!

It's not often (believe it or no) that I would name a reply something as presumptious as proof, but I believe I've found the crucial piece of text to justify KarinsDad's, Shard O Glase's and my interpretation (i.e. rays okay) and torpedoeing the AuraSeer/Caliban line.

Read Split Ray (T&B, p.42)

Now, this is often overlooked, and I would never take it as a feat, but for arbitrating on Chain Spell, it's crucial.



This would almost certainly indicates that rays (and other ranged-touch attacks) are a subsection of the 'specify a single target' family of spell.

Since it is fairly obvious that this feat affects Rays (hence the name), it would be preposterous to presume therefore that the descriptive text precludes rays being used: hence, the only valid interpretation is that rays 'specify a single target'. That they fall into the subcategory of also 'requiring a ranged touch attack' does not exclude them from 'specifying a single target'. Once this is accepted, it is a small logical step to realise that rays are affected by Chain Spell.

I rest my case...

Dang how could I forget that. I pointed out the same thing in some other thread many moons ago.

 

[KarinsDad]

Re: Proof!

This would almost certainly indicates that rays (and other ranged-touch attacks) are a subsection of the 'specify a single target' family of spell.

Since it is fairly obvious that this feat affects Rays (hence the name), it would be preposterous to presume therefore that the descriptive text precludes rays being used: hence, the only valid interpretation is that rays 'specify a single target'. That they fall into the subcategory of also 'requiring a ranged touch attack' does not exclude them from 'specifying a single target'. Once this is accepted, it is a small logical step to realise that rays are affected by Chain Spell.

Actually Al, although I agree with what should be allowed with "specify a single target", what is actually allowed is literally different.

I think that all the Split Ray feat proves is that the author of it made the same assumptions about Rays that you, Shard, and I made when he wrote the feat. IMHO.

After re-reading the text on Effects, it is quite clear that they target locations, not creatures. The location for Rays just happens to be a line of spaces as opposed to a single space like other Area Effect spells. Granted you have to make a Ranged Touch Attack roll for any creature in the line, but that is basically irrelevant. According to a literal reading of Rays, if you miss the first creature in the line, you get to target the second, etc. (since it is an Effect). Of course, you also get to choose which creature you attack as well, so it is kind of nebulous and not well written. Basically, you choose a target creature, roll, and then find out if you actually got into the Cover range of any creatures (that they gave to your target) between it and you. Then, if you do not really hit a different creature, you get to see if your attack hit the creature you were "targeting". If you do not really hit that creature, you get to see if your attack hit any creature behind the one you were "targeting" (again, since it is an Effect that "targets" a location of a line of spaces through that creature's space). In reality though, it does not target that creature per se, just the location where he is standing.

The possibility of hitting a target behind the actual target is also what should happen for missile weapons in a straight line where you miss the touch AC of the actual target, but I doubt most people actually do that or that there are any literal rules on that. But, the implication for missile weapons is there from the reading of Rays.