A few questions about Chain Spell

[KarinsDad]

Well, if I throw a blind kobold into the middle of an empty room, I can cast Fireball on him and not damage anyone else. So by your interpretation, Fireball is subject to chaining? Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Don't be obtuse.

My interpretation does not state that at all.

Area effect spells do not target single opponents. They target areas.

My interpretation states that if either the Target or the Spell Description allows for a single target and it is not a touch attack, then it is applicable.

Not if an area effect spell is cast in an area with a single target.

 

[AuraSeer]

Hmmmm.
That's odd.
I need to rethink my interpretation.

I hadn't realized how few spells it would apply to. Glancing through the SRD, it seems that most spells with a Target entry have a range of either Personal or Touch. There are maybe twenty spells that my interpretation would apply to, which does make this feat a lot less useful than I thought.

So either they wanted this to be a very limited feat, or they just worded it badly, and intended it to apply to rays.

Then again... if it affects rays, do you still need to make an attack roll? Do you roll for each target, or only for the primary target? I don't quite see how that would work.

[Edited to add: The feat becomes a lot more useful if you also have Reach Spell. But is Chain Reach Bull's Strength really worth a 7th-level slot?]

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Well, there's Heat/Chill Metal (Although it'll do SO much damage for a 5th level spell ).

Melf's Acid Arrow (See above commentary).

And... that's all I can find.

edited to not beat a dead horse. since aura seer posted quicker than I did.

 

[KarinsDad]

[Edited to add: The feat becomes a lot more useful if you also have Reach Spell. But is Chain Reach Bull's Strength really worth a 7th-level slot?]

Probably not, but I have less of a problem with Metamagic feats that give you too little utility at the cost of a high level slot vs. ones that give you too much utility at the cost of a low level slot.

And actually, I can see at higher level, a Sorcerer casting Chain Reach Endurance where you buff up the ally with the lowest normal hit points who failed his save on an area effect damage spell the most, and several other allies who either have more hit points to begin with, or who made their saves with the lesser version on the arc.

Course, I view it as halving the result, regardless of whether the result is damage or not, not halving the dice of the result. Other DMs would not halve at all since it is not damage.

 

[Al]

A correction first: the whole Ray of Enfeeblement discussion is moot. The save is for Fort NEGATES, not halves. And with the DC four points lower than a 1st level spell, that is not going to be too difficult.

On to the meat:
I rule that any spell that can only affect a single target and has a range greater than touch can be chained. Rays, ranged touch attacks and the like are all fair game. Area effect spells clearly are not.

However, there are a few spells being batted around here which I do disagree with. Magic Missile, for one, does not *necessarily* affect a single target: it can affect up to five. The same applies for Flame Arrow. Spells such as Lightning Bolt, Fireball and such are right out, as they do not always affect a single target. Does this make the halve damage a joke? Not really. Most of the ranged save-or-dies have a Fort partial, so if the secondary targets make their saves then I halve the damage (I rule the damage, not the dice: otherwise you end up with silliness like 0dX). Melf's Acid Arrow and direct-damage rays would be other examples of halved damage to secondary targets. There are also a few weird ones like Choke, Ice Knife and Manaspear (R&R).

As for damage/other variable effects dichotomy, I tend to halve damage, but not other effects. Since the description specifies damage, I would assume that other effects would not be halved. Ability damage, however, being a form of 'damage', would be. Negative levels and boosting spells would be retained at full power (Chained Enervation is not nice).

The main use, of course, of Chain Spell is for nasty effects that are generally restricted to one victim. Transmutations and Enchantments are the usual preferred schools for chaining, with some Necromancy featuring, and of course the Power Words. Having said that, if you have a Rod of Greater Chaining, Maze is a very good choice indeed. With a party of disparate Intelligence scores and different rolls for time taken to escape, you can prepare and slaughter your victims as they make their way out one-by-one.

 

[AuraSeer]

A correction first: the whole Ray of Enfeeblement discussion is moot. The save is for Fort NEGATES, not halves. And with the DC four points lower than a 1st level spell, that is not going to be too difficult.

You can't cop out that easily. What if I play a wiz with Int 20 and Greater Spell Focus: Necromancy? What if I Heighten Ray of Enfeeblement to 6th level? Assuming the spell is chainable, I'd get a save DC of 25 for the primary target, and 21 for secondary targets.

Maybe it's not the most efficient use of feats and slots, but no one ever said players have to be efficient. The legality of a combination can be questioned even if that combination is not smackdown material.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Chain spell is meant to only be useful on a select few spells. I fail to see the difference with allowing on a spell which creates missiles of magic to be affected and then NOT allowing a spell which (say) creates an iron wall, or an explosion, or a lightning bolt. In fact the only real way you could make that distinction is by using the game terms.

As soon as you start strictly applying the game terms, you really ought to be reading the feat, and the feat states that it only works on spells with a single target, something that ranged touch spells do not have(they have effect: ray, or effect: one fiery arrow).

The naming of the feat really doesn't matter - it's closest analogue is the addition of the phrase "mass" to a (beneficial) spell. Because this is a feat, it is then reduced in power slightly to account for the many and varied applications of the spell.

I would be willing to allow this to apply for the single-target functions of spells which have a single-target function and some other function (the only example to spring to mind is power-word kill, which specifies "One living creature or one or more creatures within a 15-ft.-radius sphere")

And just so you know, destruction and finger of death both cause damage on a failed save, and both would be valid base spells for this feat as I've interpreted it.

 

[Daag]

Chain spell is a good feat. I've taken it with both a Wizard and a Cleric I've played. The one thing that makes it incredibly useful is the fact you can apply it to Greater Magic Weapon, Haste and Greater Magic Fang. I don't know where people got the idea just because a spell is beneficial, you can't apply Chain Spell to the spell. Even if a spell is beneficial, it usually has a save associated with it, and therefore is eligible for chaining.

My group looked at the obvious inspiration for this feat, Chain Lightning. We ruled that only spells that never miss, ie do not require an attack roll, to be eligible for chaining, since chain lightning never misses. This makes a lot of spells ineligible, but we were fine with that. There are also a lot of other spells that are eligible. Enchantment, Divination, Necromancy and Illusion by far have the most spells that are eligible. There's nothing like a chained Phantasmal Killer or Shadow Well.

A couple other spells from BoEM and BoEM II that are eligible are Bolt of Conjuring and Unhand.

Daag

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I think the biggest problem with chain spell is it's intended function to chain attack spells it sucks horribly at with an exception of one or two spells, and where it rocks is the unintended beneficial spell chains.

Lets look at the damage spells, lets say I invent a 2nd level spell does 10d6 target one creature, I chain it. Now it's 5th level does 10d6 to primary target, 5d6 to the rest. It's base DC is for a 2nd elvel spell though. Now look at any 5th level spell it's damage cap is 15d6, and 1/2 damage to the rest, and its saves are actually at 5th level. Problem damage spells just suck for chain spell. Even at the base level where you get this spell, it beats a chained spell down easily, and once you progress a few levels past the chained spells cpaped damage it just is pathetic.

Save or die style spells, lets see I chain it it's 3 levels higher and there is a penalty of -4 to the saves on all non primary targets. Lets go with a clerics hold person. It's 5th level though it has the save DC of a 2nd level spell for the primary target and the save DC of a -2 level spell for the rest. Just save your self a high level spell and cast hold on the primary target because unless they roll really pathetic the rest aren't failing there saves.

Now for buff style spells it does rock. No doubt about it.

The feat really needs a rewrite one for balance so its intended purpose doesn't suck, and two to clarify which spells it is supposed to work on. personally I think damaging spells that are chianed should be boosted maybe one level, maybe two, that way they are at least close to their damage cap for thier level, and don't suck. For save or die, I'm fine with the 3 level boost, but the benefit should include a save boost of +4 to the DC for the primary target, and normal saves for the rest.

 

[Caliban]

I disagree with KD's interpretation.

I don't believe that Chain Spell can be used with Magic Missile or Flame arrow, because they don't specify a single target. They allow one or more targets, which is different from specifying a single target.

I feel that using the more liberal interpretation makes the feat too powerful.

Not much else to say, because it really revolves around how restrictive you think the "Specifies a single target" is meant to be. They should have given an example or two, or spelled it out further.