Chain Spell feat questions

[Malin Genie]

"Targeted" spells are quite different from "Effect: Ray" spells.

For example, to cast a targeted spell you actually need a target. OTOH with a Ray you can fire one into the darkness, into thin air hoping there is an invisible opponent lurking there, above your head just to impress the peasants, et cetera.

Ray spells use the Ranged Touch attack mechanic; so you can hi the wrong target (including one of your own party members if they happen to be providing cover.) A Targeted spell strikes precisely the opponent Targeted.

On the basis that an "Effect: Ray" spell doesn't specify targets, and looking at the clear differences above, I would never allow chaining of a Ray. However, if you did, how would you adjudicate it?

The idea of chaining is that the main spell hits the primary target, and then secondary effects devolve from that onto the secondary targets. So how can a caster 'aim' the secondary rays? On what basis do you make the touch attacks? Presumably you calculate cover using the primary victim as the 'new' source, but what about concealment - is that calculated from the POV of the caster or the primary victim?

I do agree that the wording of Split Ray is unfortunate; however, a Ray can have a 'target' in the non-magical sense, the same way as an arrow, crossbow bolt or sword blow has a target.

That is, a Ray spell does not have a Target, but it creates an effect which can have a target - in the broader sense of the word, as opposed to the technical definition of a Targeted spell.

 

[Hypersmurf]

"Targeted" spells are quite different from "Effect: Ray" spells.

That's why I quoted the FAQ where it says "A spell is also 'targeted' if it's a Ray"

I don't agree with it, but it's sometimes considered an official source

-Hyp.

 

[Malin Genie]

Hence my last two paragraphs trying to explain how a spell which isn't a Target spell can still be thought of as 'targeted' in a broader sense. Just to show (a) two can play the FAQ-quoting game and (b) no, the FAQ makes no sense and is indeed self-contradictory.....

Main FAQ p50:

If the spell has a Target entry, you must be able to see or touch the subject to use the spell......If the spell has an Effect entry and normally requires an attack roll against a specific target, you can still hit an unseen target...

making a clear distinction between a Targeted spell and an Effect spell (which you can then aim at a 'target')

I have looked at the quote you provide (Main FAQ 59), and it is in the context of adjudicating the mirror image spell. In that particular case, the mirror image works the same way with both "Target" (narrow sense) and "target" (Effect which you then try to hit someone with) so the word "targeted" is being used there in the broad sense.

IMHO that quote, taken in the context in which it appears, does not establish that Effect spells are to be considered the same as Target spells outside of the specific situation being considered in that response, which is that of the mirror image spell.

 

[Hypersmurf]

IMHO that quote, taken in the context in which it appears, does not establish that Effect spells are to be considered the same as Target spells outside of the specific situation being considered in that response, which is that of the mirror image spell.

I'd personally rather see the whole FAQ entry about Mirror Image removed.

The line about Rays being 'targeted' is needlessly confusing, and the bit about targeted spells destroying figments is making up new rules for the spell.

-Hyp.

 

[Malin Genie]

I'd personally rather see the whole FAQ entry about Mirror Image removed.

The line about Rays being 'targeted' is needlessly confusing, and the bit about targeted spells destroying figments is making up new rules for the spell.

-Hyp.

Preach!

(Of course personally I'd rather see the spell removed - while I understand the designers' preferece for leaving legacy spells in situ, I think mirror image, at least without serious modification, interacts very poorly with 3e rules.)

 

[Hypersmurf]

(Of course personally I'd rather see the spell removed - while I understand the designers' preferece for leaving legacy spells in situ, I think mirror image, at least without serious modification, interacts very poorly with 3e rules.)

It's one of the worst for people-not-agreeing-how-it-works.

What is the overriding condition, "remain in a cluster", or "each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or the character"?

When do the images shuffle? What exactly does "while moving" mean?

Do images count as "creatures"? As "opponents"? Does popping a figment count as "dropping an opponent"? Can they provide flanking bonuses?

Great spell, horrible implementation.

-Hyp.