Chain spell is too restrictive [Archive] - Wizards Community

Chain spell is too restrictive [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
The Simbul
05-30-04, 07:49 AM Chain Spell uses up a spell slot three levels higher than the spell, and can allow a single target spell to affect an additional target per caster level, however the additional targets either take half damage or the Save DC is reduced by 4.

However Mass versions of an given spell, are generally only two levels higher and have no such restrictions, whether it be Mass Suggestion, Mass Fly, Wail of the Banshee (mass finger of death), Mass Heal (8th level in 3.0) or similar spells.

A Character could just as easily research a Mass version of X spell, and by the existing rules and examples have it be superior to a Chained version of the spell. The only plausible advantage for Chain spell would be with spontaneous spellcasters, but even in that case one could still create a Mass Spell metamagic feat, that would accomplish the same thing, but be less costly in added spell levels whilst still operating within the invisible ceiling of spell level balance.
Seeker95
05-30-04, 08:10 AM Originally posted by The Simbul
but even in that case one could still create a Mass Spell metamagic feat, that would accomplish the same thing Characters cannot create feats. So while a spellcaster could research and create a mass version of most spells two levels higher than the original, no character *in game* can research a mass spell feat. If the DM creates it, then it is avaialble, and would make chain spell redundant, since chain spell *is* the mass spell feat.

Researching a single mass version of a spell does not give you the flexibility of [i]chain spell[/]i to be applied to any spell you want. The +3 levels requreis that the *player* show some selective restraint in choosing which spells to make "mass-ish".

And the +4DC or half damage give the flexibility of selecting the outcome. For example, reflex save spells probably come off better with the DC version, since the successful save still results in half damage. But all or nothing effect spells are better used with the half damage effect.
smrtgmp
05-30-04, 08:28 AM I dont think you get a choice. Spells that do damage do half damage, those that dont provide a save at a +4 bonus.

Out of curiosity, does it specifically say players cant create their own metamagic feats? It seems like a logical thing for a wizard to be able to do. Obviously any such feat would have to be run by a DM, but I see no reason to deny players the opportunity to do this, provided it is not expessly prohibited by the rules. It seems to me this would be an interesting way to further customize ones character, and could add a lot of flavor as well.
The Simbul
05-30-04, 09:34 AM Feats are basically talent you choose learn, AFAIC if a player presents a balanced and reasonable feat to a DM, and the DM allows non-core content, then at the very least it should be considered.

Given that "Metamagic" in 2nd edition was little more than spells you cast to affect other spells (Extension I, II, & III, Vocalize, Jalatans Miraculum, Laeral's Gesture, The Simbul's Spell Supremacy, etc) then it is certainly feasible for a spellcaster to research a method to augment their own magic, even if it isnt specifically stated in the rules.

In the case of a preparation spellcaster (Wizard, Druid, Cleric) researching Mass versions of spells, while costly, would actually be better than taking the Chain Spell feat, since you save a feat slot (somethign far more precious), and you have to prepare your metamagic ahead of time anyways, thus choosing which researched Mass spells you want to cast isnt very different from using metamagic.
Seeker95
05-30-04, 10:32 AM Originally posted by The Simbul
AFAIC if a player presents a balanced and reasonable feat to a DM, and the DM allows non-core content, then at the very least it should be considered. True. If a *player* presents a balanced metamagic feat idea to me, I would consider allowing it in my game. But the PHB and DMG present in-game mechanics for how *characters* research new spells, and how this is handled. There are no in-game mechanics for *characters* researching new feats.

And because the Chain Spell Metamagic Feat already presents mechanics for converting any spell into a "chain" version, I would not consider Mass Spell Metamagic Feat to be balanced (as you presented it). It accomplishes more than the existing feat with less penalty, making the existing feat useless.
Seeker95
05-30-04, 10:42 AM Originally posted by The Simbul
In the case of a preparation spellcaster (Wizard, Druid, Cleric) researching Mass versions of spells, while costly, would actually be better than taking the Chain Spell feat, since you save a feat slot (somethign far more precious), and you have to prepare your metamagic ahead of time anyways, thus choosing which researched Mass spells you want to cast isnt very different from using metamagic. If you take the Chain Spell Feat, you can already apply it to any spell you would want to consider casting a mass version of. Researching your spells one at a time in order to have more of them might be a good idea for someone who wants to conserve spell slots at the expense of money and time. But I would hardly call it better. Nor would I call it "not very different". It is quite different. One takes a single Feat to use it all the time, every day, for any spell. The other requires researching each and every spell separately, spending both time and money over and over again.

Consider:
Buying sixty-four Porsche 911s -- one in each color of the Crayola 64-pack; or
Buying an expensive (the cost of a second Porsche) chromography devise that lets you exchange 100 horsepower* for a new color, whenever you wanted. And if you stick with the original color, the horsepower is normal.
While this device does not exist, it is similar to the choice you are offering the spellcaster.

*The Porsche 911 has 296 horsepower. Sacrificing the 100 horsepower would prevent you from hitting your top speed of 175 mph, and probably triple your 0-60 time from 5 to 15 seconds.
Sproik
05-30-04, 12:10 PM Originally posted by Seeker95
...*The Porsche 911 has 296 horsepower. Sacrificing the 100 horsepower would prevent you from hitting your top speed of 175 mph, and probably triple your 0-60 time from 5 to 15 seconds.

:ayyyy!:

Just so there is no confusion, eh?
smrtgmp
05-30-04, 09:36 PM Originally posted by Seeker95
True. If a *player* presents a balanced metamagic feat idea to me, I would consider allowing it in my game. But the PHB and DMG present in-game mechanics for how *characters* research new spells, and how this is handled. There are no in-game mechanics for *characters* researching new feats.

Its true that there are no exising mechanics, but it probably wouldnt be much work to come up with something. You could treat it somewhat like spell research, so that it costs more and takes longer for each +1 mod it adds to the spell. I suppose it would be handeled much lilke gaining any other feat. There isnt much mechanics involved there either, you just get a new feat when you attain a certain level. Maybe there could be a metamaster feat (with some high prerequisites) that allowed you to research new feats and be better with the ones you have. *shrugs* just brainstorming.
Seeker95
05-30-04, 10:19 PM Originally posted by smrtgmp
Its true that there are no exising mechanics, but it probably wouldnt be much work to come up with something. It is rarely much work to come up with any kind of house rule. But it is just that -- a house rule.

In this case, the original poster was suggesting (ina roundabout way) a house rule that created a feat that was better at providing the same thing that an existing feat already provides.
smrtgmp
05-30-04, 11:32 PM It is rarely much work to come up with any kind of house rule. But it is just that -- a house rule.
I'm not disputing this.

In this case, the original poster was suggesting (ina roundabout way) a house rule that created a feat that was better at providing the same thing that an existing feat already provides.
Nor this.

However, I still think there should be some sort of mechanics for developing feats in-game. It seems like a logical progression for a spell-casters abilities to be able to create their own ways to alter magic, rather than relying soly on the discoveries of those who came before them. Again, I was only brainstorming.
Seeker95
05-31-04, 09:11 PM Originally posted by smrtgmp
I still think there should be some sort of mechanics for developing feats in-game.I don't think feats should be "in-game developed" by characters. Feats are a collection of skills or abilities with a game mechanics impact. They do not have "an activation" or "an outcome result". Feats are "metagame" mechanics.

However, I do think that Feats can be developed by players and DMs alike. And the Feat Factory series over at Silven Crossroads (http://www.silven.com/) addresses the out-of-game process by which players and DMs can develop a number of different kinds of feats for balanced in-game application.
smrtgmp
05-31-04, 09:23 PM Originally posted by Seeker95
I don't think feats should be "in-game developed" by characters. Feats are a collection of skills or abilities with a game mechanics impact. They do not have "an activation" or "an outcome result". Feats are "metagame" mechanics.

I guess I think of them differently. I see them a skills that the individual has picked up over the course of his or her life. Such skills would require practice and the like, so it seems like something a character could work on in game. Take silent spell, for example. YOu develop a way to cast your spells without the verbal components. How is this metagaming? Certainly some feats couldnt be researched/practiced, but I think metamagic feats would be an exception, since they are basically an extension of your magical research. *shrugs* just my take on the matter.
Seeker95
05-31-04, 09:46 PM Originally posted by smrtgmp
I guess I think of them differently. I see them a skills that the individual has picked up over the course of his or her life. Such skills would require practice and the like, so it seems like something a character could work on in game. Take silent spell, for example. YOu develop a way to cast your spells without the verbal components. How is this metagaming?Ahhh... I see our distinction. And I also see the solution.

You equate Feats to skills. I agree. PCs do not create skills. They put ranks into skills that the DM and/or Players sa are "valid".

Further... when I said "metagame mechanics" I did not mean this in the normally negative sense of the term "metagame". I mean, Feats are not events in the game. They are ways in which the mechanics of the game are affected. You don't cast a Feat. Or "perform" a feat. You use a Feat to perform some other action, or to affect how an action is performed.

As such, a Feat either exists in a campaign world or it does not. It is not researched. It is simply used. If you have a Feat idea, run it by your DM. The next time you can choose a Feat, you take it.
The Simbul
06-01-04, 07:14 AM One can easily deduce that the Chain Spell feat is based off the Chain Lighting spell, even through the 3rd level lightning bolt is not a single target spell. So what if a Mass Spell feat didnt allow spells which inflict damage (virtually no Mass spells in the core rules do, except for cure spells vs undead) but allowed touch spells to be affected.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
The Simbul 05-30-04, 07:49 AM	Chain Spell uses up a spell slot three levels higher than the spell, and can allow a single target spell to affect an additional target per caster level, however the additional targets either take half damage or the Save DC is reduced by 4. However Mass versions of an given spell, are generally only two levels higher and have no such restrictions, whether it be Mass Suggestion, Mass Fly, Wail of the Banshee (mass finger of death), Mass Heal (8th level in 3.0) or similar spells. A Character could just as easily research a Mass version of X spell, and by the existing rules and examples have it be superior to a Chained version of the spell. The only plausible advantage for Chain spell would be with spontaneous spellcasters, but even in that case one could still create a Mass Spell metamagic feat, that would accomplish the same thing, but be less costly in added spell levels whilst still operating within the invisible ceiling of spell level balance.
Seeker95 05-30-04, 08:10 AM	Originally posted by The Simbul but even in that case one could still create a Mass Spell metamagic feat, that would accomplish the same thing Characters cannot create feats. So while a spellcaster could research and create a mass version of most spells two levels higher than the original, no character in game can research a mass spell feat. If the DM creates it, then it is avaialble, and would make chain spell redundant, since chain spell is the mass spell feat. Researching a single mass version of a spell does not give you the flexibility of [i]chain spell[/]i to be applied to any spell you want. The +3 levels requreis that the player show some selective restraint in choosing which spells to make "mass-ish". And the +4DC or half damage give the flexibility of selecting the outcome. For example, reflex save spells probably come off better with the DC version, since the successful save still results in half damage. But all or nothing effect spells are better used with the half damage effect.
smrtgmp 05-30-04, 08:28 AM	I dont think you get a choice. Spells that do damage do half damage, those that dont provide a save at a +4 bonus. Out of curiosity, does it specifically say players cant create their own metamagic feats? It seems like a logical thing for a wizard to be able to do. Obviously any such feat would have to be run by a DM, but I see no reason to deny players the opportunity to do this, provided it is not expessly prohibited by the rules. It seems to me this would be an interesting way to further customize ones character, and could add a lot of flavor as well.
The Simbul 05-30-04, 09:34 AM	Feats are basically talent you choose learn, AFAIC if a player presents a balanced and reasonable feat to a DM, and the DM allows non-core content, then at the very least it should be considered. Given that "Metamagic" in 2nd edition was little more than spells you cast to affect other spells (Extension I, II, & III, Vocalize, Jalatans Miraculum, Laeral's Gesture, The Simbul's Spell Supremacy, etc) then it is certainly feasible for a spellcaster to research a method to augment their own magic, even if it isnt specifically stated in the rules. In the case of a preparation spellcaster (Wizard, Druid, Cleric) researching Mass versions of spells, while costly, would actually be better than taking the Chain Spell feat, since you save a feat slot (somethign far more precious), and you have to prepare your metamagic ahead of time anyways, thus choosing which researched Mass spells you want to cast isnt very different from using metamagic.
Seeker95 05-30-04, 10:32 AM	Originally posted by The Simbul AFAIC if a player presents a balanced and reasonable feat to a DM, and the DM allows non-core content, then at the very least it should be considered. True. If a player presents a balanced metamagic feat idea to me, I would consider allowing it in my game. But the PHB and DMG present in-game mechanics for how characters research new spells, and how this is handled. There are no in-game mechanics for characters researching new feats. And because the Chain Spell Metamagic Feat already presents mechanics for converting any spell into a "chain" version, I would not consider Mass Spell Metamagic Feat to be balanced (as you presented it). It accomplishes more than the existing feat with less penalty, making the existing feat useless.
Seeker95 05-30-04, 10:42 AM	Originally posted by The Simbul In the case of a preparation spellcaster (Wizard, Druid, Cleric) researching Mass versions of spells, while costly, would actually be better than taking the Chain Spell feat, since you save a feat slot (somethign far more precious), and you have to prepare your metamagic ahead of time anyways, thus choosing which researched Mass spells you want to cast isnt very different from using metamagic. If you take the Chain Spell Feat, you can already apply it to any spell you would want to consider casting a mass version of. Researching your spells one at a time in order to have more of them might be a good idea for someone who wants to conserve spell slots at the expense of money and time. But I would hardly call it better. Nor would I call it "not very different". It is quite different. One takes a single Feat to use it all the time, every day, for any spell. The other requires researching each and every spell separately, spending both time and money over and over again. Consider: Buying sixty-four Porsche 911s -- one in each color of the Crayola 64-pack; or Buying an expensive (the cost of a second Porsche) chromography devise that lets you exchange 100 horsepower* for a new color, whenever you wanted. And if you stick with the original color, the horsepower is normal. While this device does not exist, it is similar to the choice you are offering the spellcaster. *The Porsche 911 has 296 horsepower. Sacrificing the 100 horsepower would prevent you from hitting your top speed of 175 mph, and probably triple your 0-60 time from 5 to 15 seconds.
Sproik 05-30-04, 12:10 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 ...*The Porsche 911 has 296 horsepower. Sacrificing the 100 horsepower would prevent you from hitting your top speed of 175 mph, and probably triple your 0-60 time from 5 to 15 seconds. :ayyyy!: Just so there is no confusion, eh?
smrtgmp 05-30-04, 09:36 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 True. If a player presents a balanced metamagic feat idea to me, I would consider allowing it in my game. But the PHB and DMG present in-game mechanics for how characters research new spells, and how this is handled. There are no in-game mechanics for characters researching new feats. Its true that there are no exising mechanics, but it probably wouldnt be much work to come up with something. You could treat it somewhat like spell research, so that it costs more and takes longer for each +1 mod it adds to the spell. I suppose it would be handeled much lilke gaining any other feat. There isnt much mechanics involved there either, you just get a new feat when you attain a certain level. Maybe there could be a metamaster feat (with some high prerequisites) that allowed you to research new feats and be better with the ones you have. shrugs just brainstorming.
Seeker95 05-30-04, 10:19 PM	Originally posted by smrtgmp Its true that there are no exising mechanics, but it probably wouldnt be much work to come up with something. It is rarely much work to come up with any kind of house rule. But it is just that -- a house rule. In this case, the original poster was suggesting (ina roundabout way) a house rule that created a feat that was better at providing the same thing that an existing feat already provides.
smrtgmp 05-30-04, 11:32 PM	It is rarely much work to come up with any kind of house rule. But it is just that -- a house rule. I'm not disputing this. In this case, the original poster was suggesting (ina roundabout way) a house rule that created a feat that was better at providing the same thing that an existing feat already provides. Nor this. However, I still think there should be some sort of mechanics for developing feats in-game. It seems like a logical progression for a spell-casters abilities to be able to create their own ways to alter magic, rather than relying soly on the discoveries of those who came before them. Again, I was only brainstorming.
Seeker95 05-31-04, 09:11 PM	Originally posted by smrtgmp I still think there should be some sort of mechanics for developing feats in-game.I don't think feats should be "in-game developed" by characters. Feats are a collection of skills or abilities with a game mechanics impact. They do not have "an activation" or "an outcome result". Feats are "metagame" mechanics. However, I do think that Feats can be developed by players and DMs alike. And the Feat Factory series over at Silven Crossroads (http://www.silven.com/) addresses the out-of-game process by which players and DMs can develop a number of different kinds of feats for balanced in-game application.
smrtgmp 05-31-04, 09:23 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 I don't think feats should be "in-game developed" by characters. Feats are a collection of skills or abilities with a game mechanics impact. They do not have "an activation" or "an outcome result". Feats are "metagame" mechanics. I guess I think of them differently. I see them a skills that the individual has picked up over the course of his or her life. Such skills would require practice and the like, so it seems like something a character could work on in game. Take silent spell, for example. YOu develop a way to cast your spells without the verbal components. How is this metagaming? Certainly some feats couldnt be researched/practiced, but I think metamagic feats would be an exception, since they are basically an extension of your magical research. shrugs just my take on the matter.
Seeker95 05-31-04, 09:46 PM	Originally posted by smrtgmp I guess I think of them differently. I see them a skills that the individual has picked up over the course of his or her life. Such skills would require practice and the like, so it seems like something a character could work on in game. Take silent spell, for example. YOu develop a way to cast your spells without the verbal components. How is this metagaming?Ahhh... I see our distinction. And I also see the solution. You equate Feats to skills. I agree. PCs do not create skills. They put ranks into skills that the DM and/or Players sa are "valid". Further... when I said "metagame mechanics" I did not mean this in the normally negative sense of the term "metagame". I mean, Feats are not events in the game. They are ways in which the mechanics of the game are affected. You don't cast a Feat. Or "perform" a feat. You use a Feat to perform some other action, or to affect how an action is performed. As such, a Feat either exists in a campaign world or it does not. It is not researched. It is simply used. If you have a Feat idea, run it by your DM. The next time you can choose a Feat, you take it.
The Simbul 06-01-04, 07:14 AM	One can easily deduce that the Chain Spell feat is based off the Chain Lighting spell, even through the 3rd level lightning bolt is not a single target spell. So what if a Mass Spell feat didnt allow spells which inflict damage (virtually no Mass spells in the core rules do, except for cure spells vs undead) but allowed touch spells to be affected.