Chained Ray Spells and True Strike [Archive] - Wizards Community

Chained Ray Spells and True Strike [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
BrutishCelt
08-29-07, 03:29 PM I'm sure that this issue has been addressed before, but I can't seem to find it, and I'm facing a potential application of this tactic this weekend.

The ray of enfeeblement spell requires a ranged touch attack to hit the target. True strike gives you a +20 bonus on your next attack, which includes ranged touch attacks. When you chain a spell that requires a ranged touch attack, do you simply make one attack roll and apply that against the AC of every target of the chained ray, thus gaining the benefit of true strike against each target, or would you make separate attacks against each chained target, and therefore only get the benefits of true strike against the initial target?

I'm inclined to rule that a separate attack needs to be rolled against each target, but the text for the [Chain Spell] metamagic feat seems to indicate that chained targets get saving throws instead of the normal target resolution action [i.e. ranged touch attack roll].

On a side note, would the ray, even if it missed the initial target, still be able to arc to the other chained targets? My guess would be "no," since the failure of the initial attack would cause the effect of the spell to be lost.

Thanks for any clarification you guys can provide on this matter. My plan to pull off a "waves of fatigue => true strike => chained escalating enfeeblement" combo hinges upon your accumulated wisdom! [and the ability of the party tanks to run interference for 3 rounds while staying out of the way of my initial waves of fatigue]
tarkin
08-29-07, 03:38 PM True Strike applies to the first attack roll you make and only that one.

There is nothing in Chain spell to claim that you would use that attack roll again.

But more importantly, there is nothing in the Chain spell feat to imply that you have to even MAKE another attack roll. I think (not aboslotely positive) that you do NOT have to make a additional attack rolls.

Instead they get saving throws. Damage is reduced to 1/2 original, and Save for 1/2 damage or save negates at -4 to original DC if the spell does not do damage.

I would rule you need no to hit rolls for the other people, but they get a DC -4, save negates for the enfeeblement.
BrutishCelt
08-29-07, 03:40 PM That's kinda what I figured. Thanks a bunch tarkin, o wise one!
Merestil Haye
08-29-07, 03:40 PM The ray of enfeeblement spell requires a ranged touch attack to hit the target. True strike gives you a +20 bonus on your next attack, which includes ranged touch attacks. When you chain a spell that requires a ranged touch attack, do you simply make one attack roll and apply that against the AC of every target of the chained ray, thus gaining the benefit of true strike against each target, or would you make separate attacks against each chained target, and therefore only get the benefits of true strike against the initial target?You are making a common mistake.

You may not apply Chain Spell to Ray of Enfeeblement because, contrary to your apparent belief, it is not targeted.

Chain Spell may only be applied to a spell with a single target and a range greater than touch. A targeted spell has a Target: entry in the spell information header. If that is not there the spell is not targeted.
bigbythewise
08-29-07, 03:50 PM You are making a common mistake.

You may not apply Chain Spell to Ray of Enfeeblement because, contrary to your apparent belief, it is not targeted.

Chain Spell may only be applied to a spell with a single target and a range greater than touch. A targeted spell has a Target: entry in the spell information header. If that is not there the spell is not targeted.

That's correct indeed.
BrutishCelt
08-29-07, 03:51 PM I'm inclined to disagree on that point unless you can cite an official ruling on what constitutes a "targeted" spell . Every "ray" type spell that I've read [barring the ones that produce multiple rays ->[I]scorching ray], while not having a "Target" line in its description, indicates that the ray affects a single target in the spell text. This appears to fulfil the "any spell that specifies a single target" line in the feat description [CA p76].

Maybe the feat text needs some clarification as to what exactly constitutes a spell that "specifies a single target."

Thanks for your input, though. I'm gonna be pondering this at work until my head starts screaming at me, hehe.
zorgling25
08-29-07, 03:53 PM Deleted, ignore.
zorgling25
08-29-07, 03:55 PM I'm inclined to disagree on that point unless you can cite an official ruling on what constitutes a "targeted" spell . Every "ray" type spell that I've read [barring the ones that produce multiple rays ->[I]scorching ray], while not having a "Target" line in its description, indicates that the ray affects a single target in the spell text. This appears to fulfil the "any spell that specifies a single target" line in the feat description [CA p76].

You can only chain a spell that has ONE AND ONLY ONE TARGET. Nowhere does it say you can chain a spell with less than one or more than one target. Since rays have the potential to have zero targets, they cannot be chained.
BrutishCelt
08-29-07, 03:59 PM This hurts my head, but thanks for disabusing me of my fevered dreams. Maybe I'll have to manage with a chained phantasmal assailants and send the enemy off screaming into the depths of Undermountain.

Thanks for all the quick feedback!
Werebat
08-29-07, 07:03 PM You can only chain a spell that has ONE AND ONLY ONE TARGET. Nowhere does it say you can chain a spell with less than one or more than one target. Since rays have the potential to have zero targets, they cannot be chained.

Um, OK... So, stupid question... Can you use Split Ray on a Ray spell? "Your ray spells can affect an additional target", "...all rays must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other."

- Ron ^*^
mvincent
08-29-07, 07:38 PM I'm inclined to disagree on that point unless you can cite an official ruling on what constitutes a "targeted" spell . Every "ray" type spell that I've read [barring the ones that produce multiple rays ->[I]scorching ray], while not having a "Target" line in its description, indicates that the ray affects a single target in the spell text. This appears to fulfil the "any spell that specifies a single target" line in the feat description [CA p76].It is commonly understood that referencing a "targeted spell" means that the spell must have a target (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040824a) entry in its description.

Example - Brew Potion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#brewPotion) says:
"You can create a potion of any 3rd-level or lower spell that you know and that targets one or more creatures."

Which is clarified by the RotG (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041214a) as:
"The spell stored in the potion or oil must have a target entry in its spell description"

Conversely, ray spells are always referred to as "effect (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#targetorTargets)" spells*. Yeah... it's weird... but that's D&D terminology for ya. I used to think exactly as you do, and still think it's odd how D&D has defined their terminology.

* Note: there are some rare ray spells that are also targeted, but that is only because they have both and effect and a target line in their description

That is not to say that some D&D authors don't also use the conventional usage of "target". I suppose one could make an argument that the author of the chain spell feat (when writing "any spell that specifies a single target") was using the regular usage of "target" rather than referencing a targeted spell.
zorgling25
08-29-07, 09:45 PM Um, OK... So, stupid question... Can you use Split Ray on a Ray spell? "Your ray spells can affect an additional target", "...all rays must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other."

- Ron ^*^

Yes, because there's no line in Split Ray that says it can only be applied to a spell with a single target. Whereas Chain Spell says it can be applied to "any spell that specifies a single target."

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
BrutishCelt 08-29-07, 03:29 PM	I'm sure that this issue has been addressed before, but I can't seem to find it, and I'm facing a potential application of this tactic this weekend. The ray of enfeeblement spell requires a ranged touch attack to hit the target. True strike gives you a +20 bonus on your next attack, which includes ranged touch attacks. When you chain a spell that requires a ranged touch attack, do you simply make one attack roll and apply that against the AC of every target of the chained ray, thus gaining the benefit of true strike against each target, or would you make separate attacks against each chained target, and therefore only get the benefits of true strike against the initial target? I'm inclined to rule that a separate attack needs to be rolled against each target, but the text for the [Chain Spell] metamagic feat seems to indicate that chained targets get saving throws instead of the normal target resolution action [i.e. ranged touch attack roll]. On a side note, would the ray, even if it missed the initial target, still be able to arc to the other chained targets? My guess would be "no," since the failure of the initial attack would cause the effect of the spell to be lost. Thanks for any clarification you guys can provide on this matter. My plan to pull off a "waves of fatigue => true strike => chained escalating enfeeblement" combo hinges upon your accumulated wisdom! [and the ability of the party tanks to run interference for 3 rounds while staying out of the way of my initial waves of fatigue]
tarkin 08-29-07, 03:38 PM	True Strike applies to the first attack roll you make and only that one. There is nothing in Chain spell to claim that you would use that attack roll again. But more importantly, there is nothing in the Chain spell feat to imply that you have to even MAKE another attack roll. I think (not aboslotely positive) that you do NOT have to make a additional attack rolls. Instead they get saving throws. Damage is reduced to 1/2 original, and Save for 1/2 damage or save negates at -4 to original DC if the spell does not do damage. I would rule you need no to hit rolls for the other people, but they get a DC -4, save negates for the enfeeblement.
BrutishCelt 08-29-07, 03:40 PM	That's kinda what I figured. Thanks a bunch tarkin, o wise one!
Merestil Haye 08-29-07, 03:40 PM	The ray of enfeeblement spell requires a ranged touch attack to hit the target. True strike gives you a +20 bonus on your next attack, which includes ranged touch attacks. When you chain a spell that requires a ranged touch attack, do you simply make one attack roll and apply that against the AC of every target of the chained ray, thus gaining the benefit of true strike against each target, or would you make separate attacks against each chained target, and therefore only get the benefits of true strike against the initial target?You are making a common mistake. You may not apply Chain Spell to Ray of Enfeeblement because, contrary to your apparent belief, it is not targeted. Chain Spell may only be applied to a spell with a single target and a range greater than touch. A targeted spell has a Target: entry in the spell information header. If that is not there the spell is not targeted.
bigbythewise 08-29-07, 03:50 PM	You are making a common mistake. You may not apply Chain Spell to Ray of Enfeeblement because, contrary to your apparent belief, it is not targeted. Chain Spell may only be applied to a spell with a single target and a range greater than touch. A targeted spell has a Target: entry in the spell information header. If that is not there the spell is not targeted. That's correct indeed.
BrutishCelt 08-29-07, 03:51 PM	I'm inclined to disagree on that point unless you can cite an official ruling on what constitutes a "targeted" spell . Every "ray" type spell that I've read [barring the ones that produce multiple rays ->[I]scorching ray], while not having a "Target" line in its description, indicates that the ray affects a single target in the spell text. This appears to fulfil the "any spell that specifies a single target" line in the feat description [CA p76]. Maybe the feat text needs some clarification as to what exactly constitutes a spell that "specifies a single target." Thanks for your input, though. I'm gonna be pondering this at work until my head starts screaming at me, hehe.
zorgling25 08-29-07, 03:53 PM	Deleted, ignore.
zorgling25 08-29-07, 03:55 PM	I'm inclined to disagree on that point unless you can cite an official ruling on what constitutes a "targeted" spell . Every "ray" type spell that I've read [barring the ones that produce multiple rays ->[I]scorching ray], while not having a "Target" line in its description, indicates that the ray affects a single target in the spell text. This appears to fulfil the "any spell that specifies a single target" line in the feat description [CA p76]. You can only chain a spell that has ONE AND ONLY ONE TARGET. Nowhere does it say you can chain a spell with less than one or more than one target. Since rays have the potential to have zero targets, they cannot be chained.
BrutishCelt 08-29-07, 03:59 PM	This hurts my head, but thanks for disabusing me of my fevered dreams. Maybe I'll have to manage with a chained phantasmal assailants and send the enemy off screaming into the depths of Undermountain. Thanks for all the quick feedback!
Werebat 08-29-07, 07:03 PM	You can only chain a spell that has ONE AND ONLY ONE TARGET. Nowhere does it say you can chain a spell with less than one or more than one target. Since rays have the potential to have zero targets, they cannot be chained. Um, OK... So, stupid question... Can you use Split Ray on a Ray spell? "Your ray spells can affect an additional target", "...all rays must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other." - Ron ^*^
mvincent 08-29-07, 07:38 PM	I'm inclined to disagree on that point unless you can cite an official ruling on what constitutes a "targeted" spell . Every "ray" type spell that I've read [barring the ones that produce multiple rays ->[I]scorching ray], while not having a "Target" line in its description, indicates that the ray affects a single target in the spell text. This appears to fulfil the "any spell that specifies a single target" line in the feat description [CA p76].It is commonly understood that referencing a "targeted spell" means that the spell must have a target (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040824a) entry in its description. Example - Brew Potion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#brewPotion) says: "You can create a potion of any 3rd-level or lower spell that you know and that targets one or more creatures." Which is clarified by the RotG (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041214a) as: "The spell stored in the potion or oil must have a target entry in its spell description" Conversely, ray spells are always referred to as "effect (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#targetorTargets)" spells. Yeah... it's weird... but that's D&D terminology for ya. I used to think exactly as you do, and still think it's odd how D&D has defined their terminology. Note: there are some rare ray spells that are also targeted, but that is only because they have both and effect and a target line in their description That is not to say that some D&D authors don't also use the conventional usage of "target". I suppose one could make an argument that the author of the chain spell feat (when writing "any spell that specifies a single target") was using the regular usage of "target" rather than referencing a targeted spell.
zorgling25 08-29-07, 09:45 PM	Um, OK... So, stupid question... Can you use Split Ray on a Ray spell? "Your ray spells can affect an additional target", "...all rays must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other." - Ron ^*^ Yes, because there's no line in Split Ray that says it can only be applied to a spell with a single target. Whereas Chain Spell says it can be applied to "any spell that specifies a single target."