Chain Lightning vs. Spell Turning

[Lord Pendragon]

Well, let me try to post this once more...

Here's the scenario:

Wizard A casts Chain Lightning from 300 feet away. He selects Wizard B as the primary target, and several of Wizard B's companions as secondary targets. What he doesn't know is that Wizard B has Spell Turning active. What happens?

Part Deux: Wizard A casts Chain Lightning from 300 feet away, only this time he selects one of Wizard B's companions as the primary target and Wizard B as a secondary target. Wizard B still has Spell Turning active. What happens?

 

[Dragon Mage]

I asked this question before and the conscience was:

1) The primary target's Chain Lightning is turned, while the secondary targets are affected as normal.

2) Since the Wizard with Spell Turning is targeted with a secondary bolt, that is all that is turned on the caster. All other targets are affected as normal.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I asked this question before and the conscience was:

I think you mean "consensus"?

1) The primary target's Chain Lightning is turned, while the secondary targets are affected as normal.

2) Since the Wizard with Spell Turning is targeted with a secondary bolt, that is all that is turned on the caster. All other targets are affected as normal.

And in both cases, the fact that Wizard A is 300 feet away...far more than 30 feet from the other targets...doesn't come into play?

 

[dcollins]

The distance to the secondary targets certainly has to be a limiting factor.

Personally, in case (A), partly for flavor sake and partly for symmetry, I'd have the same number of secondary strokes target people close to the original caster. Other DMs can reasonably differ on that.

Case (B) is a real toughie because the definition of "secondary targets" seems not fully defined by the rules. I think this one I'd rule that it just has to drain away (reflect off protected target, re-target original caster, but violate targetting distance and thereby become invalid).

 

[andargor]

Hmm. Wouldn't this line in spell turning's description invalidate it against chain lightning?

The abjuration turns only spells that have you as a target.

Chain lightning:

Targets: One primary target, plus one secondary target/level (each of which must be within 30 ft. of the primary target)

Andargor

 

[Sithobi1]

It would if it said:
The abjuration turns spells that have only you as a target.
but as it is, I would say that it simply doesn't affect wizard B in situation 2

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Hmm. Wouldn't this line in spell turning's description invalidate it against chain lightning?

As far as I know, no. The quote you give mentions nothing about you being the only target, only that you be one of the targets. Basically, the spell needs to have a "Target:" line and not be a touch spell, as I understand it.

My gut agrees with Dragon Mage. That basically you just turn whatever part of the spell would have affected the wizard with Spell Turning, with the caveat that--as dcollins mentions--if the original caster isn't a valid target (due to range or whatnot), the spell simply drains away.

But the rules on it aren't clear enough for me to be 100% certain, hence this post.

 

[andargor]

Argh. More SRD spaghetti. I guess they like Italian food.

Andargor

 

[Joker]

Personally if the companions were the first target(s) and wizard B the second, I would have the chain go through all the targets, get turned by the wizard and then go through all the targets again in reverse order only to be turned on wizard A.

Obviously this has nothing to do with the rules, I just think it would look spiffy .

 

[dcollins]

I have to admit, that's pretty funny to think about.