| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Werebat07-22-07, 02:16 PM | Is it permissible to use the Chain Spell feat on a Ray? As in, Chained Ray of Dizziness? As in, TPK? - Ron ^*^ |
| SunTzuWarmaster07-22-07, 05:29 PM | no |
| Werebat07-22-07, 06:47 PM | no Why not? Chain spell says "Any spell that specifies a single target and has a range greater than touch..." Ray spells all have a range greater than touch, and by definition they only affect one target. For example, Ray of Enfeeblement says "You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike a TARGET." No ray spell that I know of will affect more than one target, so it would seem that they all specify a single target. Which means Chained Ray of Dizzyness! WHEEE!!! HELLOOOO TPK!!! I can't WAIT to KILL all the PCs in my game!!! :evillaugh Why, this is the most BALANCED spell EVER!!! It'll certainly even the odds at my gaming table anyway... (Seriously, I really hope this ISN'T allowed, as it seems overpowered and probably would result in a TPK... Is there any reason why it won't work? My guess is that you'll say "because Ray spells don't say 'Target: One Creature' but in a way it seems like they DO by definition target one creature.) - Ron ^*^ |
| starfalconkd07-22-07, 06:49 PM | I think that works. It's mean, but possible. |
| Lafing Cat07-22-07, 06:53 PM | I think that works. It's mean, but possible. Ray spells don't have targets. Note the lack of a target line in the spell block They are Effect: Ray. You cannot chain an Effect spell. |
| lint trap07-22-07, 07:27 PM | Ray spells don't have targets. Note the lack of a target line in the spell block. Right. This is why the Split Ray metamagic feat exists. |
| Werebat07-23-07, 02:34 AM | Right. This is why the Split Ray metamagic feat exists. It could be argued that the Split Ray metamagic feat provides a cheaper and less effective (in most ways) version of what Chain Spell can do. Or that it could work in conjunction with Chain Spell... Chained Split Ray of Dizziness FTW! I get that the word "target" isn't in the headers for any Ray spell, but it is still a valid point that rays specify a single target. Chain Spell doesn't say WHERE they have to specify a single target, after all. I don't WANT it to work, I'm just trying to find a concrete reason why it wouldn't. I get that there is an argument that it wouldn't, but is it definitive? Has this been addressed by the designers anywhere? Seems like something someone would have asked the Sage at some point. - Ron ^*^ |
| Caterpillar07-23-07, 10:03 AM | It could be argued that the Split Ray metamagic feat provides a cheaper and less effective (in most ways) version of what Chain Spell can do. Or that it could work in conjunction with Chain Spell... Chained Split Ray of Dizziness FTW! I get that the word "target" isn't in the headers for any Ray spell, but it is still a valid point that rays specify a single target. Chain Spell doesn't say WHERE they have to specify a single target, after all. I don't WANT it to work, I'm just trying to find a concrete reason why it wouldn't. I get that there is an argument that it wouldn't, but is it definitive? Has this been addressed by the designers anywhere? Seems like something someone would have asked the Sage at some point. - Ron ^*^ Seems to me that you have already made up your mind and despite the fact that you say you hope it's not permitted you aren't acting that way at all. |
| runestar07-23-07, 10:18 AM | I get that the word "target" isn't in the headers for any Ray spell, but it is still a valid point that rays specify a single target. Chain Spell doesn't say WHERE they have to specify a single target, after all. You "target" someone with a ray in the layman sense of speaking, but you do not target them with respect to dnd terminology. That is the difference. I say again - the term "target" has a very narrow and specific connotation in dnd. In essence, a spell must have the line - target: XXX to be considered a targeted spell. Other spells do not count, regardless of how eloquently you argue about how you are using them to target a foe. |
| tarkin07-23-07, 11:53 AM | When a feat says any targetable spell they specifically mean a spell with the words "Target: ...." in the description. Nothing else counts. Similarly, when a feat says it only affects an Area spell it only works on a spell that says "Area:..." in the description. Any other interpretation is a House Rule. |
| starfalconkd07-23-07, 10:03 PM | What about the Lens of Ray Chaining on pages 45 - 46 of Lords of Madness? It allows you to chain ray spells. Why would the feat be different? |
| Everdreaming07-23-07, 10:34 PM | What about the Lens of Ray Chaining on pages 45 - 46 of Lords of Madness? It allows you to chain ray spells. Why would the feat be different? The feat would be differant b/c it is not the same. Meaning, that the feat is not the item, and thus works differently. The item is specifically made to chain ray spells, the feat is made to chain target spells. The item(presumably) uses the feats mechanics, but on a different effect, ray rather than target. Also, the reason rays are not target spells is b/c most of them require ranged touch attacks. That means you aim a ray at someone, but you are not garenteed to hit. |
| starfalconkd07-24-07, 08:52 AM | Well there is your answer Werebat. Use a lens of ray chaining. |
| Pentar07-24-07, 01:57 PM | As a point of curiosity, Warlocks have an Blast-Shape Invocation that lets them chain their Eldritch Blasts. But that whole mechanic operates only for the Warlock's special abilities. I agree with everyone else, Werebat, you cannot Metamagic Chain Spell a Ray effect. If you are looking for a RAW-legal way to TPK, then try a Terrasque. |
| Buttmonkey07-24-07, 02:07 PM | Ray spells don't have targets. Note the lack of a target line in the spell block They are Effect: Ray. You cannot chain an Effect spell. Whatever you're smoking, please give me some. |
| Lafing Cat07-24-07, 02:54 PM | Whatever you're smoking, please give me some. *hands Buttmonkey a nice pipe filled with reading comprehension* |
| Wind of Darkness07-24-07, 02:55 PM | Whatever you're smoking, please give me some. If you're going to be flippant, try not to be wrong too. We agree that Chain Spell works on targeted spells, yes? Well, here's the definition of targeting: Target or Targets Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell. If the target of a spell is yourself (the spell description has a line that reads Target: You), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The Saving Throw and Spell Resistance lines are omitted from such spells. Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing. Some spells allow you to redirect the effect to new targets or areas after you cast the spell. Redirecting a spell is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. And now, we see that Rays get their own entry, under "Effect": Effect Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present. You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it. Range determines how far away an effect can appear, but if the effect is mobile it can move regardless of the spell’s range. Ray Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don’t have to see the creature you’re trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature you’re aiming at. If a ray spell has a duration, it’s the duration of the effect that the ray causes, not the length of time the ray itself persists. If a ray spell deals damage, you can score a critical hit just as if it were a weapon. A ray spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. See the difference? If not, how about an example or two? First, a targeted spell: Magic Missile Evocation [Force] Level: Sor/Wiz 1 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) Targets: Up to five creatures, no two of which can be more than 15 ft. apart Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: Yes A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage. The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat or has less than total cover or total concealment. Specific parts of a creature can’t be singled out. Inanimate objects are not damaged by the spell. For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile—two at 3rd level, three at 5th, four at 7th, and the maximum of five missiles at 9th level or higher. If you shoot multiple missiles, you can have them strike a single creature or several creatures. A single missile can strike only one creature. You must designate targets before you check for spell resistance or roll damage. I even bolded the Target entry for you. You can't miss it. Now, for a ray spell: Ray of Enfeeblement Necromancy Level: Sor/Wiz 1 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Effect: Ray Duration: 1 min./level Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: Yes A coruscating ray springs from your hand. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike a target. The subject takes a penalty to Strength equal to 1d6+1 per two caster levels (maximum 1d6+5). The subject’s Strength score cannot drop below 1. See, it has "Effect: Ray", so it's a ray spell. But what's this? No Target entry? Well, then it can't be Chained, can it? |
| Elentar07-24-07, 03:29 PM | I see your point, it's very comprehensible, nevertheless it's a bit questionaible, in the feat description it says: "Any spell that specifies a single target and has a range greater than touch." If you acknowledge that a single target is the key phrase you have to admit that a ray does infact specify a target and has a range greater than touch, and thus it would still have to work. |
| cwslyclgh07-24-07, 03:50 PM | a ray does infact specify a target nope, in order to specify a target a spell has to have the Target: line. a ray spell specifies no targets, you can shoot it straight up into the sky if you want (the spell doesn't fail, although unless you aim it as something it has no effect). Aiming a spell at a creature is not the same as specifying a target, when using game terminology. |
| Pentar07-24-07, 07:07 PM | I see your point, it's very comprehensible, nevertheless it's a bit questionaible, in the feat description it says: "Any spell that specifies a single target and has a range greater than touch." If you acknowledge that a single target is the key phrase you have to admit that a ray does infact specify a target and has a range greater than touch, and thus it would still have to work. cwslyclgh has already stated it, but I'll reinforce it - spells with a "Target:" descriptor is the key note here. You don't necessarily have to aim a ray at a target. You can aim it at open air and hope to hit a target that may or may not occupy that space. While as, casting a "target spell" (like Charm Person) would automatically fail if there is no valid target within range - this is clearly not true for Ray spells. |
| Asilomar07-25-07, 02:23 AM | *sigh* This is what happens when you mix Magic the Gathering and D&D. I think my Wizard will create an Instant ... :confused: ... inturrupt ... :confused: ... split second ... :confused: ... free action ... :confused: ... swift action ... that's it! that will let me prevent me from being targetted by a particular color ... :confused: ... school of magic. I shall call them CoP: Black ... I mean Necromancy, :confused: ? Ward vs Necromancy? Protection from Necromancy? :confused: |
| strenoth07-25-07, 03:21 AM | here's the big, importent difference between and effect spell and a targeted spell. If you know there is an invisble character in that corner over there (cause you heard him step on something or whatever), a targeted spell is still absolutly useless. but an effect spells, such as a ray, can still be aimed at the corner the same way you can aim an arrow or other ranged weapon. thus, by the definitions of DnD, it is NOT a target spell. If it makes it easier for you, think of it as an 'aimed' spell. |
| kalyb07-25-07, 05:01 AM | I see your point, it's very comprehensible, nevertheless it's a bit questionaible, in the feat description it says: "Any spell that specifies a single target and has a range greater than touch." If you acknowledge that a single target is the key phrase you have to admit that a ray does infact specify a target and has a range greater than touch, and thus it would still have to work. In the description of Shot on the Run (PHB 100), it says "You a re highly trained in skirmish ranged weapon tactics." Does this mean you gain the scout's skirmish ability with ranged weaons? No. But if you acknowledge that trained in skirmish is the key phrase... Just becasue you can creatively interpret the wording, doesn't change the definiton of what the feat does. |
| Elentar07-25-07, 06:35 AM | Hm... and I seriously thought that I made clear that I understood his explanation. ;) |
| locustechpriest07-25-07, 06:51 AM | In the description of Shot on the Run (PHB 100), it says "You a re highly trained in skirmish ranged weapon tactics." Does this mean you gain the scout's skirmish ability with ranged weapons? No. But if you acknowledge that trained in skirmish is the key phrase... Just becasue you can creatively interpret the wording, doesn't change the definiton of what the feat does. I know this thread is over... but this seems to demand an answer. Kalyb, you seem to confuse flavor text for rules text (mixing MtG and DnD again... sorry). The conceptual texts, while important, cannot be used in conjunction with rules terminology to definitively prove anything. Also note that the PHB (description that you cited) was written before the PHBII (scout class) was devised, so please don't say such unnecessary things. |
| Nezkrul07-25-07, 11:02 AM | I know this thread is over... but this seems to demand an answer. Kalyb, you seem to confuse flavor text for rules text (mixing MtG and DnD again... sorry). The conceptual texts, while important, cannot be used in conjunction with rules terminology to definitively prove anything. Also note that the PHB (description that you cited) was written before the PHBII (scout class) was devised, so please don't say such unnecessary things. *target's reading comprehension/sarcasm indicator failed* *assisting target* It was sarcasm used to point out how someone else was looking at flavor text and using it to get what they want. |
| Fwib07-25-07, 12:15 PM | I am amazed that no-one has brought up chain weapons. Clearly because they have the word 'chain' in their name, you must be able to hit several targets with every attack! :D |
| Pentar07-25-07, 02:02 PM | Hm... and I seriously thought that I made clear that I understood his explanation. ;) Were that the case, you would not have said it was questionable. Once you understand how it works, it really is an open/close case. |
| Elentar07-25-07, 02:21 PM | Pentar Originally Posted by Elentar View Post Hm... and I seriously thought that I made clear that I understood his explanation. Were that the case, you would not have said it was questionable. Once you understand how it works, it really is an open/close case. In my opinion I can say one thing, like it is questionable while still believing that the explanation given before is right. To me it's not an open/close case as I see exactly what he/you means, but it's still not that specifically said in the Complete Arcane. And don't come running at me with the difference between and effect spell and a targeted spell, I got it. I even agree on your previous post, that said: the "Target:" descriptor is the key ability to apply chain spell feat on a spell. But it's not RAW in the CA. As I reread the Chain Spell feat description I can't exclude other spells that have a spell description that say they have a target from applying the feat. Thus leaving it questionable till the feat description specifically says, spells that have the "Target:" descriptor. And yes I've read runestars post on the problem of having the same word target with two different meanings in the dnd terminology. |
| DarkPawn07-25-07, 02:51 PM | On a related topic, can a ray spell hit a swarm (subtype)? |
| Pentar07-25-07, 03:01 PM | In my opinion I can say one thing, like it is questionable while still believing that the explanation given before is right. To me it's not an open/close case as I see exactly what he/you means, but it's still not that specifically said in the Complete Arcane. And don't come running at me with the difference between and effect spell and a targeted spell, I got it. I even agree on your previous post, that said: the "Target:" descriptor is the key ability to apply chain spell feat on a spell. But it's not RAW in the CA. As I reread the Chain Spell feat description I can't exclude other spells that have a spell description that say they have a target from applying the feat. Thus leaving it questionable till the feat description specifically says, spells that have the "Target:" descriptor. And yes I've read runestars post on the problem of having the same word target with two different meanings in the dnd terminology. Then this is just a case of willful misinterpretation. The only way this is "questionable" to you, is if you're forcefully choosing to believe that when they say "target", they mean anyone that can potentially be hit by anything. The fact that you're trying so hard to read-between-lines that don't exist means that you just want a certain interpretation and you're going to force feed yourself that rubbish despite all glaring evidence to the contrary. Well... you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make 'im drink. |
| penchant07-25-07, 03:55 PM | In the entry it does use the word target, but in a less specific way. For example, if they were specifically talking about the target entry in spell descriptions they could have been clear on that. Complete Arcane is fully a 3.5 book and had access to all the specific terminology given in the PHB. However it says, "Any spell that specifies a single target and has a range greater than touch can be chained..." This is odd because there are no spells (that I can find) that have both a target entry and are touch spells. So why does the feat need to make the distinction? If it is limited to Targeted spells with a range greater than touch then it is only necessary to say "Any targeted spell that specifies a single target can be chained..." To make the distinction between such spells that have a range of touch and such spells with a range greater than touch invites a different interpertation. Rays specify a single target. Touch spells specify a single target but are specifically excluded from the feat. Rays thus qualify for Chained Spell. And just because you fall in with the mob doesn't give a person the right to be condecending or correct. |
| Pentar07-25-07, 04:00 PM | In the entry it does use the word target, but in a less specific way. For example, if they were specifically talking about the target entry in spell descriptions they could have been clear on that. Complete Arcane is fully a 3.5 book and had access to all the specific terminology given in the PHB. However it says, "Any spell that specifies a single target and has a range greater than touch can be chained..." This is odd because there are no spells (that I can find) that have both a target entry and are touch spells. So why does the feat need to make the distinction? If it is limited to Targeted spells with a range greater than touch then it is only necessary to say "Any targeted spell that specifies a single target can be chained..." To make the distinction between such spells that have a range of touch and such spells with a range greater than touch invites a different interpertation. Rays specify a single target. Touch spells specify a single target but are specifically excluded from the feat. Rays thus qualify for Chained Spell. And just because you fall in with the mob doesn't give a person the right to be condecending or correct. Rays do not specify a single target. Many Ray spells may only hit a single target, but there are those that break this convention. Scorching Ray is a great example of a Ray spell that produces multiple rays that can strike multiple targets without applying any metamagic to them. Notwithstanding that I've dealt with enough people who take the wording in the books and RAW and twist them to mean something they want it to mean, despite the clear intentions (and in this case, wording), otherwise. |
| Wind of Darkness07-25-07, 04:06 PM | This is odd because there are no spells (that I can find) that have both a target entry and are touch spells. There are, though. Here: Shocking Grasp Evocation [Electricity] Level: Sor/Wiz 1 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Creature or object touched Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: Yes Your successful melee touch attack deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 5d6). When delivering the jolt, you gain a +3 bonus on attack rolls if the opponent is wearing metal armor (or made out of metal, carrying a lot of metal, or the like). Boldface mine. See, it's a Touch spell, with a Target entry. It has to be specifically sxcluded from the feat, or else it would quailify because it has a Target entry (and let's face it, that would just be akward). Most spells with a range of touch work like this. Bull's strength, slay living, fly... Go ahead, look around. There are a lot of 'em. Rays specify a single target. But they don't. You don't have to shoot them at anything at all! You can fire a ray at open air, if you want. The ray will fire off, hit nothing, and have no effect other than to look neat, but it'll work. You can't do the same with a targeted spell. With a targeted spell, you have to specify a target (one within LoS and that you have LoE to) or the spell fails. Not so with rays. |
| penchant07-25-07, 05:48 PM | Ah, good call on the shocking grasp. I'm wrong. However, the scorching ray example is incorrect since the spell doesn't hit two or more targets with a ray, it produces multiple rays. A single ray cannot hit more than one target (otherwise rogue/casters will rule). You cannot disintegrate more than a single person with one ray even if you have enough Area of effect left over to cover two or more people. If you disintegrate a tiny creature you cannot then blast through and hit the next creature. I know what the official ruling is, my argument is that the text is not cut and dry and relying on single words in the entry (as if the RAW itself is perfect) is not always the best thing to do. Saying that something is or isn't because a particular word is used works in programming, math and science... but not D&D. Discussing the balance of ruling one way or another is a better discourse than grammar is. What is the rammifications of reading it "as you would like" instead of the alternative? Would the chained spell be more powerful than a spell of the equivalent level (remebering that secondary targets take half damage or face a much reduced save DC). What abuses are possible? What are the unintended consequences? Simply saying that the "entry clearly states" when it really does have room for interpretation is not going to convince someone with an opposing view as much as "Yes, there is some disagreement about it, but it has been discussed at length in this forum and here is the link." Like it or not, the RAW is long, convoluted and not entirely executed with consistency (though MUCH better than past editions) and when you add splat books that increase that complexity with new rules, definitions, rulings (see polymorph subschool) and all usually authored by people OTHER than the original writers of the system who may or may not have their own ideas of what should be. That's why these forums get so much play. Other than the incessant, "What race/class/feat/build should I pick *whine*" threads. All that said, it should be possible to have a chained ray BUT with its own feat and rules. Rather than suffering a weaker save, secondary targets should be harder to hit with the touch attack. The warlock's eldrich chain is a good model to start from, though. |
| Pentar07-25-07, 06:04 PM | Are you suggesting then, that by being able to "chain a ray" you can chain anything that has a Ranged touch attack that targets a single creature? so say... Meteor Swarm? I appreciate your desire to debate ideas revolving Chaining Ray spells. I will also note that I also brought up the warlock's Blast-shape invocation regarding chaining their eldritch blasts, suggesting thusly that perhaps something could be created as a custom metamagic feat. However, it is one thing to debate ideas on creating a new feat, it is another to purposefully and willfully misinterpret the rules to shoehorn existing feats into places they don't belong. You know what the wording of the feat intended and we can find any number of spells that would fit your criteria of "targeting a single creature with range greater than touch", that should not be chained. It's just nonsense to try to pass off the wording as "potentially questionable" when really it isn't, you're just trying to jam a square peg into a round hole. As for your argument that Scorching Ray does not apply as an example, it certainly DOES apply. Because if you're going to suggest that "target" means anything that gets hit, then Scorching Ray is ruled out of a Chain spell because it can potentially be used to target multiple creatures, thereby breaking the rule of "targets a single creature..." |
| penchant07-25-07, 07:06 PM | I agree with you. I said I agree with the ruling. But my point was not that you could use chain on a spell as long as you only use it on one creature. The point was that a Ray, any ray can target ONLY one creature. And forgive me for horning in on your idea, you did suggest the warlock's ability first and I was referring to your post. My next point was that while most people (on the boards) agree on what the text is intended to mean, that does not preclude other interpretations or that the other interpertation is overpowered or munchkin. Group think does not indicate correctness. For the record, name a ray spell that specifes one target and has a range greater than touch that would be completely broken if allowed to be chained. As you and I both mention, Scorching ray is a ray spell that under the alternate interpretation would still not be able to be chained because it can potentially affect one person. Which is why you can't use is as an example of why you can't use rays with chain as it is specifically excluded. The most powerful effect I can think of with the alternate interpertation of chained spell would be chained disintegrate, which would be a powerful 9th level spell. But I don't see it as more powerful than Wierd, however. Its worst abuse would be in attacking castles and battlements, but maybe still in line with 9th level spells. |
| Pentar07-25-07, 11:44 PM | And forgive me for horning in on your idea, you did suggest the warlock's ability first and I was referring to your post. Ahh I see, I apologize then. My next point was that while most people (on the boards) agree on what the text is intended to mean, that does not preclude other interpretations or that the other interpertation is overpowered or munchkin. Group think does not indicate correctness. For the record, name a ray spell that specifes one target and has a range greater than touch that would be completely broken if allowed to be chained. Actually, I sort of think it does. Unlike other "mob mentality" situations - most of us posting and debating on these forums are people who are well versed in D&D, usually through several editions. We have had years of gaming experience and can draw upon a lot of knowledge as ideas are debated. While group think does not dictate official rules, I believe it does dictate a certain amount of "generally accepted understanding or interpretation". Typically, we are discussing wording and contradictions and combinations of abilities, skills, races, etc. that are causing problems or potential issues. As such, the common understanding about how a certain mechanic should most likely work (and would thus probably be the fairest and best way to play it) is a fair and credible. As for naming a spell that would be completely broken - Prismatic Ray comes to mind. IIRC, Chained, it would be the same as Prismatic Spray, except that you get to select your targets now. Effect abilities like Ray of Exhaustion or ability damage spells like Ray of Stupidity would be devastating Chained in certain situations. The most powerful effect I can think of with the alternate interpertation of chained spell would be chained disintegrate, which would be a powerful 9th level spell. But I don't see it as more powerful than Wierd, however. Its worst abuse would be in attacking castles and battlements, but maybe still in line with 9th level spells. It's not just a matter of purely doing damage. Damage is certainly an important factor, but effect-drive, no-save (or save partial) spells are hideously dangerous if you're allowed to Chain them from one creature to the next, specifically avoiding hitting friends and targeting foes. One of the balancing factors of Rays are the fact that they can only hit a single creature - and more often than not, they offer no save for their effect. Simultaneously, one of the best features of the Warlock is their ability to chain their attacks with shaped blasts and invocations. Even then, the Warlock still needs to make a separate attack roll for each chain and each chain effect is weaker than the last. The majority of their non-damage effects also allow a save negates. Besides, as someone else has mentioned, there is a separate feat specific to Rays that lets pseudo-chain; Split Ray. And if you want to go above and beyond that, Twin or Repeat it. |
| penchant07-26-07, 03:13 PM | Ok, Prismatic Spray = 7th level spell with a 60ft cone. ray effects are random. Chained prismatic Ray = 8th level spell (saves DC as 5th, secondary as 1st level spell or half damage depending on ray) with a medium range that affects up to caster level of people in 30' of primary target. Missing Indigo rays and "hit by two rays" option. Well, that would be equivalent to the power of an 8th level spell. I see your point about consensus. But I have brought up ideas or discussions on the board and had my ideas completely trampled on with the pretense that "we already thought of that and we decided that didn't work so you shouldn't have brought it up." As if, because I was not part of that discussion or had not noticed the thread, my years of experience and (I think) reasoned opinions count for nothing. that is why I am advocating trying to see someone's point of view and not assuming that they want to disagree with the concensus for the cause of munchkindom. That is why I suggested and still suggest that respondents should not be condecending and instead kindly refer someone to the discussions about the topic, as the boards keep backlogs for quite a long time. As far as consensus goes, yes truth can be found in consensus, but consensus does not prove truth. Also, to the argument, I just noticed this in Wind of Darkness's post: Now, for a ray spell: Quote: Originally Posted by The SRD Ray of Enfeeblement Necromancy Level: Sor/Wiz 1 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Effect: Ray Duration: 1 min./level Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: Yes A coruscating ray springs from your hand. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike a target. The subject takes a penalty to Strength equal to 1d6+1 per two caster levels (maximum 1d6+5). The subject’s Strength score cannot drop below 1. See, it has "Effect: Ray", so it's a ray spell. But what's this? No Target entry? Well, then it can't be Chained, can it? But what's this? It uses the word target AND it says A target, meaning one. Since "Target" has a singular definition in D&D and this spell uses the word, I guess it qualifies for Chaining then. |
| Buttmonkey07-26-07, 03:20 PM | If you're going to be flippant, try not to be wrong too. We agree that Chain Spell works on targeted spells, yes? Well, here's the definition of targeting: And now, we see that Rays get their own entry, under "Effect": See the difference? If not, how about an example or two? First, a targeted spell: I even bolded the Target entry for you. You can't miss it. Now, for a ray spell: See, it has "Effect: Ray", so it's a ray spell. But what's this? No Target entry? Well, then it can't be Chained, can it? Sure it can. I just ruled that it could. The SRD is now meaningless. Haha!!! |
| Meep32607-26-07, 03:23 PM | here's the big, importent difference between and effect spell and a targeted spell. If you know there is an invisble character in that corner over there (cause you heard him step on something or whatever), a targeted spell is still absolutly useless. but an effect spells, such as a ray, can still be aimed at the corner the same way you can aim an arrow or other ranged weapon. thus, by the definitions of DnD, it is NOT a target spell. If it makes it easier for you, think of it as an 'aimed' spell. No, you aim the spell at a 'square' the spell will have a 50% miss chance, both the ray and targeted spell will have the miss chance. |
| monkeybone07-26-07, 03:42 PM | Sure it can. I just ruled that it could. The SRD is now meaningless. Haha!!! You tell 'em, Buttmonkey. Send those snarky rules-lawyers packing. |
| Fwib07-26-07, 04:23 PM | No, you aim the spell at a 'square' the spell will have a 50% miss chance, both the ray and targeted spell will have the miss chance.Nah-uh!Target or Targets Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target.If you can't see or touch the target (or perceive in some other way, if the DM allows) then the spell won't work. |
| Pentar07-26-07, 07:55 PM | Ok, Prismatic Spray = 7th level spell with a 60ft cone. ray effects are random. Chained prismatic Ray = 8th level spell (saves DC as 5th, secondary as 1st level spell or half damage depending on ray) with a medium range that affects up to caster level of people in 30' of primary target. Missing Indigo rays and "hit by two rays" option. Well, that would be equivalent to the power of an 8th level spell. Ah, I thought Prismatic Ray was a lower level spell... but regardless, there's no argument about Chaining a Ray of Stupidity or Ray of Exhaustion? You can see how these no-save, effect driven spells, when chained, would be quite dangerous - above and beyond their intention too, I feel. But what's this? It uses the word target AND it says A target, meaning one. Since "Target" has a singular definition in D&D and this spell uses the word, I guess it qualifies for Chaining then. So you're basing your argument around the fact they have limited verbiage to use when dictating an object or creature that can be hit by something... SO anytime the word "target" is used, to you, it means specifically that it falls under the rules of "targeting spells". I'm fine with that. I hope you're consistent in your rulings then, because now that means you cannot fire a Ray spell at a creature under total concealment or if you don't have Line of Sight, when normally you could, but would suffer a 50% miss chance. While I can't be bothered to look it up, I'd be interested to see how many archery based feats also say the word "target"... thus I guess meaning archers can't fire at creatures they can't see. Intriguing. |
| penchant07-26-07, 11:00 PM | So you're basing your argument around the fact they have limited verbiage to use when dictating an object or creature that can be hit by something... SO anytime the word "target" is used, to you, it means specifically that it falls under the rules of "targeting spells". I'm fine with that. I hope you're consistent in your rulings then, because now that means you cannot fire a Ray spell at a creature under total concealment or if you don't have Line of Sight, when normally you could, but would suffer a 50% miss chance. While I can't be bothered to look it up, I'd be interested to see how many archery based feats also say the word "target"... thus I guess meaning archers can't fire at creatures they can't see. Intriguing. Not exactly, The example is an opposing extreme which proves my point that you cannot state that the feat Chain Spell means that a spell must have an entry of Target:X when it simply says that "spells that specify a single target" qualify with any certainty beyond that's the way most people believe it should work. I was using this as an example to disprove the assumption. Just because an entry says that it must specify a certain kind of target does not necessarily require the spell to have a Target entry in the stat block. "Target" is simply too common a word to hold to it as if it were a unique descriptor. |
| Traken07-27-07, 12:07 AM | Getting away from picking apart the RAW bit by bit, try thinking of it in mechanics form. A ray doesn't target squat. You point your hand, a ray shoots out, it hits something, disappates, and does it's magic. How would this ray hit something, disappate, then reform to hit something in an entire different direction? Granted, this is without even taking Warlocks into consideration, but Warlocks weren't around when the PHB was being written, were they? This is the reason for split ray: It made the most sense at the time. |
| ShinAkuma207-27-07, 12:19 AM | But what's this? It uses the word target AND it says A target, meaning one. Since "Target" has a singular definition in D&D and this spell uses the word, I guess it qualifies for Chaining then. Not at all. It just says that, if you want to hit a target, you need to succeed on an attack roll. It, at no time, even implies that you need a target to cast the spell, which is not the case for spells with a "Target:" entry. |
| Pentar07-27-07, 01:16 AM | Not exactly, The example is an opposing extreme which proves my point that you cannot state that the feat Chain Spell means that a spell must have an entry of Target:X when it simply says that "spells that specify a single target" qualify with any certainty beyond that's the way most people believe it should work. I can certainly use the word "target" to assume it means targeted spell. First off all, I'm basing it off your assertion that the word "target" is too generic, ergo, anything that says "target" can be interpreted as meaning "targeted spell", as per the entry under aiming a spell. That being the case, I can easily reverse the argument and say that any spell description that says "target" must fall under that rule, thus, you cannot fire a ray without line of sight... My example simply shows how taking your view on the matter of not making intelligent assumptions creates ludicrous results. "Target" is simply too common a word to hold to it as if it were a unique descriptor. Except in the cases where it simply makes sense. Unless you want to invent a new language that is more precise than English, and then re-write the game system in your newly founded language, we're going to have to use some iota of common sense when applying verbiage to our understanding of the rules. |
| Nezkrul07-27-07, 01:41 AM | Pentar, feel free to play your version of a roleplaying game based on DnD. No one is going to stop you. We are simply arguing against you without using interpretation, instead we are using RAW. If you close your eyes, then start casting Scorching Ray, you can just shoot the rays where ever you want, then roll to see if you hit anything. This is clearly NOT choosing targets, as effect: ray spells do not require you to pick targets. However, if you close your eyes and then try to cast Dominate Person, the spell would fail, because you can't pick your target since you cant see it. This is part of the specific definition of "target" with respect to DnD spells. We can't change your mind, but we can keep telling you that you aren't playing by the rules by allowing Chain Spell to work on Rays in your game; that that is a houserule, not RAW. |
| Arkenealylth07-27-07, 10:25 AM | Well I would question your methods for devising your arguments I will lay out an argument for you based only on the defenitions placed before us in the Wizards books. Remember this is a semantics argument and you can only win if you can craft a better argument than your fellow English speaking friends. Follow the bold points to get to a target for a "ray spell." Definition: Ray "A beam created by a spell. The caster must succeed on a ranged touch attack to hit with a ray." Definition: Ranged Touch Attack "A touch attack made at a distance with a ranged weapon. See attack roll." Definition: Attack Roll "A roll to determine whether an attack hits. To make an attack roll, roll 1d20 and add the appropriate modifiers for the attack type, as follows: melee attack roll = 1d20 + base attack bonus + strength modifier + size modifier; ranged attack roll = 1d20 + base attack bonus + dexterity modifier + size modifier + range penalty. In either case, the attack hits if the result is at least as high as the target's armor class. Definition: Target "The intended recipient of an attack, spell, supernatural ability, extraordinary ability, or magical effect. If a targeted spell is successful, its recipient is known as the subject of the spell." And for the coup de grace on this sad little argument please note the following in several of the "ray spell" entries. You guys really should read more of your "Core" rules before coming on this board, its sad that those of you who said this wouldn't work couldn't read at all. Well enough patronizing here we go with the final swing! Ray of Enfeeblement, Spell Description "A coruscating ray springs from your hand. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike a target. The subject takes a penalty to Strength equal to 1d6+1 per two caster levels (maximum 1d6+5). The subject’s Strength score cannot drop below 1." I can't believe what I'm seeing in a "ray spell" entry! Does that say "target" because I think that's what it says. You argued that ray spell do not have a "target" but in the description it clearly says target. Hmm, maybe it's a fluke. Let's check another one. Ray of Exhaustion, Spell Description "A black ray projects from your pointing finger. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack with the ray to strike a target. The subject is immediately exhausted for the spell’s duration. A successful Fortitude save means the creature is only fatigued. A character that is already fatigued instead becomes exhausted. This spell has no effect on a creature that is already exhausted. Unlike normal exhaustion or fatigue, the effect ends as soon as the spell’s duration expires." Oh no, it also says target, I guess it's not a fluke but merely a coincidence, let's make sure that it's not and check another. What about Disintegrate? Disintegrate, Spell Description "A thin, green ray springs from your pointing finger. You must make a successful ranged touch attack to hit. Any creature struck by the ray takes 2d6 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 40d6). Any creature reduced to 0 or fewer hit points by this spell is entirely disintegrated, leaving behind only a trace of fine dust. A disintegrated creature’s equipment is unaffected. When used against an object, the ray simply disintegrates as much as one 10-foot cube of nonliving matter. Thus, the spell disintegrates only part of any very large object or structure targeted. The ray affects even objects constructed entirely of force, such as forceful hand or a wall of force, but not magical effects such as a globe of invulnerability or an antimagic field. A creature or object that makes a successful Fortitude save is partially affected, taking only 5d6 points of damage. If this damage reduces the creature or object to 0 or fewer hit points, it is entirely disintegrated. Only the first creature or object struck can be affected; that is, the ray affects only one target per casting." Uh oh, I guess it's not a conincidence. If you read every spell entry that is a "ray spell" you will find in the description that there is a target for every spell. A "ray spell" however is a spell that has special properties that make it different from other spell which is why it's "Target:" entry is different. Well it has been much fun arguing semantics with you and I do hope that those of you who argued against this do read your "Core" material more often. It's people like you who slow down my games with your boring banter and endless, pointless rules lawyering. And kudos to those of you who knew better and tried to point out to these misguided players why they were wrong. Don't forget, if you just apply yourself and read a little you can be as good as me too! But don't worry I've been around the block, I've got a list to prove it! -Philip Slama Larii' Arkenealylth, Level 15, Living Greyhawk (Wizard, Rogue, Spellwarp Sniper) Alleria Sill, Level 14, Living Greyhawk (Ranger/Fighter/Horizon Walker) Frayne Ellesemere, Level 12, Living Greyhawk (Rogue/Spymaster) Carlos Vega, Level 9, (Paladin, Justicar, Grey Guard) Marcus Chojiro, Level 2, Living Greyhawk (Paladin) Alleria Sill, Level 10, Blackmoor (Wizard/War Wizard) Captain "Jackie" Morgan, Level 5, Blackmoor (Ranger/Fighter) Sakeafel, Level 4, Blackmoor (Sorcerer) Stephen Colbert, Level 1, Blackmoor (Cleric) Captain Jack O'Neil, Level 4, Kingdoms of Kalamar (Fighter) Eravon Nirama, Level 7, Living Force (Smuggler) MacGyver val'Mehan, Level 16, Living Arcanis (Rogue/Patrician) Veselious val'Abbebi, Level 9, Living Arcanis (Ranger/Fighter/Rogue/Sharpshooter) |
| Fwib07-27-07, 11:28 AM | Well I would question your methods for devising your arguments I will lay out an argument for you based only on the defenitions placed before us in the Wizards books. Remember this is a semantics argument and you can only win if you can craft a better argument than your fellow English speaking friends. Follow the bold points to get to a target for a "ray spell." Definition: Ray "A beam created by a spell. The caster must succeed on a ranged touch attack to hit with a ray." Definition: Ranged Touch Attack "A touch attack made at a distance with a ranged weapon. See attack roll." Definition: Attack Roll "A roll to determine whether an attack hits. To make an attack roll, roll 1d20 and add the appropriate modifiers for the attack type, as follows: melee attack roll = 1d20 + base attack bonus + strength modifier + size modifier; ranged attack roll = 1d20 + base attack bonus + dexterity modifier + size modifier + range penalty. In either case, the attack hits if the result is at least as high as the target's armor class. Definition: Target "The intended recipient of an attack, spell, supernatural ability, extraordinary ability, or magical effect. If a targeted spell is successful, its recipient is known as the subject of the spell." And for the coup de grace on this sad little argument please note the following in several of the "ray spell" entries. You guys really should read more of your "Core" rules before coming on this board, its sad that those of you who said this wouldn't work couldn't read at all. Well enough patronizing here we go with the final swing! Ray of Enfeeblement, Spell Description "A coruscating ray springs from your hand. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike a target. The subject takes a penalty to Strength equal to 1d6+1 per two caster levels (maximum 1d6+5). The subject’s Strength score cannot drop below 1." I can't believe what I'm seeing in a "ray spell" entry! Does that say "target" because I think that's what it says. You argued that ray spell do not have a "target" but in the description it clearly says target. Hmm, maybe it's a fluke. Let's check another one. Ray of Exhaustion, Spell Description "A black ray projects from your pointing finger. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack with the ray to strike a target. The subject is immediately exhausted for the spell’s duration. A successful Fortitude save means the creature is only fatigued. A character that is already fatigued instead becomes exhausted. This spell has no effect on a creature that is already exhausted. Unlike normal exhaustion or fatigue, the effect ends as soon as the spell’s duration expires." Oh no, it also says target, I guess it's not a fluke but merely a coincidence, let's make sure that it's not and check another. What about Disintegrate? Disintegrate, Spell Description "A thin, green ray springs from your pointing finger. You must make a successful ranged touch attack to hit. Any creature struck by the ray takes 2d6 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 40d6). Any creature reduced to 0 or fewer hit points by this spell is entirely disintegrated, leaving behind only a trace of fine dust. A disintegrated creature’s equipment is unaffected. When used against an object, the ray simply disintegrates as much as one 10-foot cube of nonliving matter. Thus, the spell disintegrates only part of any very large object or structure targeted. The ray affects even objects constructed entirely of force, such as forceful hand or a wall of force, but not magical effects such as a globe of invulnerability or an antimagic field. A creature or object that makes a successful Fortitude save is partially affected, taking only 5d6 points of damage. If this damage reduces the creature or object to 0 or fewer hit points, it is entirely disintegrated. Only the first creature or object struck can be affected; that is, the ray affects only one target per casting." Uh oh, I guess it's not a conincidence. If you read every spell entry that is a "ray spell" you will find in the description that there is a target for every spell. A "ray spell" however is a spell that has special properties that make it different from other spell which is why it's "Target:" entry is different. Well it has been much fun arguing semantics with you and I do hope that those of you who argued against this do read your "Core" material more often. It's people like you who slow down my games with your boring banter and endless, pointless rules lawyering. And kudos to those of you who knew better and tried to point out to these misguided players why they were wrong. Don't forget, if you just apply yourself and read a little you can be as good as me too! But don't worry I've been around the block, I've got a list to prove it! -Philip Slama Larii' Arkenealylth, Level 15, Living Greyhawk (Wizard, Rogue, Spellwarp Sniper) Alleria Sill, Level 14, Living Greyhawk (Ranger/Fighter/Horizon Walker) Frayne Ellesemere, Level 12, Living Greyhawk (Rogue/Spymaster) Carlos Vega, Level 9, (Paladin, Justicar, Grey Guard) Marcus Chojiro, Level 2, Living Greyhawk (Paladin) Alleria Sill, Level 10, Blackmoor (Wizard/War Wizard) Captain "Jackie" Morgan, Level 5, Blackmoor (Ranger/Fighter) Sakeafel, Level 4, Blackmoor (Sorcerer) Stephen Colbert, Level 1, Blackmoor (Cleric) Captain Jack O'Neil, Level 4, Kingdoms of Kalamar (Fighter) Eravon Nirama, Level 7, Living Force (Smuggler) MacGyver val'Mehan, Level 16, Living Arcanis (Rogue/Patrician) Veselious val'Abbebi, Level 9, Living Arcanis (Ranger/Fighter/Rogue/Sharpshooter)Yay for D&D. What a wonderful idea it was to use common words as game terms, and then intersperse those words among the text, with no explicit way to tell if they are intended as the game term or not. |
| Pentar07-27-07, 12:28 PM | Pentar, feel free to play your version of a roleplaying game based on DnD. No one is going to stop you. We are simply arguing against you without using interpretation, instead we are using RAW. If you close your eyes, then start casting Scorching Ray, you can just shoot the rays where ever you want, then roll to see if you hit anything. This is clearly NOT choosing targets, as effect: ray spells do not require you to pick targets. However, if you close your eyes and then try to cast Dominate Person, the spell would fail, because you can't pick your target since you cant see it. This is part of the specific definition of "target" with respect to DnD spells. We can't change your mind, but we can keep telling you that you aren't playing by the rules by allowing Chain Spell to work on Rays in your game; that that is a houserule, not RAW. Nezkrul, You are preaching to the converted. I whole-heartedly agree that Ray spells are not targeted spells. I was simply taking penchant's argument to another level to show how ridiculous it becomes when you don't apply some common sense when reading descriptive text and applying definitions. Trust me on this - I know what a Ray effect is supposed to be. I would ask that you scroll back up the thread and see my previous posts indicating my opinions on this subject. |
| Nezkrul07-27-07, 12:57 PM | Nezkrul, You are preaching to the converted. I whole-heartedly agree that Ray spells are not targeted spells. I was simply taking penchant's argument to another level to show how ridiculous it becomes when you don't apply some common sense when reading descriptive text and applying definitions. Trust me on this - I know what a Ray effect is supposed to be. I would ask that you scroll back up the thread and see my previous posts indicating my opinions on this subject. lol I think I typed the wrong name or quoted the wrong person, sorry bro. Arkenealylth: I refer you to rules you obviously omitted from your flame post Ray of Enfeeblement ... Effect: Ray and Disintegrate ... Effect: Ray and Dominate Person ... Target: one humanoid The definitions of the bolded parts in the previous quote: Aiming A Spell You must make some choice about whom the spell is to affect or where the effect is to originate, depending on the type of spell. The next entry in a spell description defines the spell’s target (or targets), its effect, or its area, as appropriate. Target or Targets Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell. If the target of a spell is yourself (the spell description has a line that reads Target: You), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The Saving Throw and Spell Resistance lines are omitted from such spells. Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing. Some spells allow you to redirect the effect to new targets or areas after you cast the spell. Redirecting a spell is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effect Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present. You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it. Range determines how far away an effect can appear, but if the effect is mobile it can move regardless of the spell’s range. Ray Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don’t have to see the creature you’re trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature you’re aiming at. I'm not going to be patronizing like you, I'm simply going to ask you why, taking into consideration the above quotes, you think you can apply Chain Spell (as written in the Complete Arcane) to Ray of Enfeeblement and/or Disintegrate, and why/why can't you apply it to Dominate Person? Try to answer me with the least amount of sarcasm and patronizing possible, and don't say "I think", "in my games", "I have before", or "IMO" as those will immediately discredit your answer. This is a rules as written question, not semantics (which are interpretation) |
| Mocoso07-27-07, 02:29 PM | edited |
| Pentar07-27-07, 02:41 PM | Uh oh, I guess it's not a conincidence. If you read every spell entry that is a "ray spell" you will find in the description that there is a target for every spell. A "ray spell" however is a spell that has special properties that make it different from other spell which is why it's "Target:" entry is different. Except that Enervation is a Ray spell in which the description does not say "Target". So is Enervation some bizarre Ray spell that is an exception to targeting rules? Ergo, you can fire an Enervation Ray at an invisible opponent, but not a Scorching Ray (based on your painstakingly listed definitions above)? Well it has been much fun arguing semantics with you and I do hope that those of you who argued against this do read your "Core" material more often. It's people like you who slow down my games with your boring banter and endless, pointless rules lawyering. And kudos to those of you who knew better and tried to point out to these misguided players why they were wrong. Don't forget, if you just apply yourself and read a little you can be as good as me too! But don't worry I've been around the block, I've got a list to prove it! *yawn* :rolleyes: I'm sure your list of characters is very impressive. I bet I could come up with a list too! Hey everyone, let's all list our characters and then talk endlessly about how cool they are!! Wow. Dude. Based on your post, I think I can safely assume that Cheetos makes up a significant portion of your daily diet. |
| penchant07-27-07, 03:30 PM | Listen, this thread started out with people stating the assumed meaning of the feat: Ray spells don't have targets. Note the lack of a target line in the spell block They are Effect: Ray. You cannot chain an Effect spell. We point of that rays do have targets and mention them in nearly every spell description. When a feat says any targetable spell they specifically mean a spell with the words "Target: ...." in the description. Nothing else counts. Similarly, when a feat says it only affects an Area spell it only works on a spell that says "Area:..." in the description. Any other interpretation is a House Rule. But the feat does NOT say "targetable spell" but instead it says "that specifies a single target" which is semantically different. Switching similar terms is not a way to prove an argument. My argument is that just because it uses the word target does not mean it refers to a line in the spell stat block. I've proven and Pentar has supported the argument, that "target" appears in many spells in many ways. Its a common use word. If you're going to be flippant, try not to be wrong too. We agree that Chain Spell works on targeted spells, yes? Well, here's the definition of targeting: And now, we see that Rays get their own entry, under "Effect": See the difference? If not, how about an example or two? First, a targeted spell: I even bolded the Target entry for you. You can't miss it. Now, for a ray spell: See, it has "Effect: Ray", so it's a ray spell. But what's this? No Target entry? Well, then it can't be Chained, can it? But we DON'T agree that it works ONLY on targeted spells. The ray spells do "specify a single target" in the body of the spell, as I've quoted and illuminated before. nope, in order to specify a target a spell has to have the Target: line. a ray spell specifies no targets, you can shoot it straight up into the sky if you want (the spell doesn't fail, although unless you aim it as something it has no effect). Aiming a spell at a creature is not the same as specifying a target, when using game terminology. But rays do specify single targets. The difference is that a ray can also have no targets at all. It is an overlapping feature between rays and target only spells. You cannot have more than one target with a ray unless you modify it with a metamagic feat. There are targeted spells that also don't qualify for the chain feat since while they specify a target, they don't specify single targets. Nezkrul, You are preaching to the converted. I whole-heartedly agree that Ray spells are not targeted spells. I was simply taking penchant's argument to another level to show how ridiculous it becomes when you don't apply some common sense when reading descriptive text and applying definitions. Trust me on this - I know what a Ray effect is supposed to be. I would ask that you scroll back up the thread and see my previous posts indicating my opinions on this subject. He thought about your post what you thought about my post. We were both using extreme examples about OTHER peoples posts to try to illuminate our own points of view. MY point of view is that this case requires interpertation since it is not clear. Now, more examples. Ray of stupidity - it does INT damage so seconday targets would take half of that damage. As a 5th level spell that has the range of a short cone but you have to hit each of your targets with a touch attack, it might not be over powered. Ray of Exhaustion - It has a save for partial effect and so secondary targets will have an easier save to make. This is now a 6th level spell but its saves are much lower than other 6th level spells. It could simply be called cone of fatique at this point. The whole point is: The phrase targetable spell is not necessarily the same thing as a spell that specifies a single target. This is the crux of the issue. The verbiage used is different and can have different connotations, which requires interpertation. The two things are not mutually exclusive or mutually inclusive. |
| Pentar07-27-07, 03:42 PM | But the feat does NOT say "targetable spell" but instead it says "that specifies a single target" which is semantically different. Switching similar terms is not a way to prove an argument. My argument is that just because it uses the word target does not mean it refers to a line in the spell stat block. I've proven and Pentar has supported the argument, that "target" appears in many spells in many ways. Its a common use word. Yes, except that in terms of interpretation, the correct interpretation is that it only works on spells that have a "Target:" line in the table. Otherwise, your argument is that any time the word "target" is used to define a single creature, you can Chain that spell, regardless of how ridiculous such an effect would be. Thus, that means the interpretation of the word "target" in the spell description is not the correct one for the Chain spell metamagic feat. And so there is not "crux" of the argument. It's just people being pig-headed and trying to shoehorn something that never fit in the first place. But rays do specify single targets. The difference is that a ray can also have no targets at all. It is an overlapping feature between rays and target only spells. You cannot have more than one target with a ray unless you modify it with a metamagic feat. Untrue. As you said so yourself, an individual ray only has a single target. The only effect of Metamagic is that it may allow you to produce more Rays which will let you pick more targets. The phrase targetable spell is not necessarily the same thing as a spell that specifies a single target. This is the crux of the issue. The verbiage used is different and can have different connotations, which requires interpertation. The two things are not mutually exclusive or mutually inclusive. That is correct. It requires interpretation. And the correct interpretation has already been given. So what's the problem? The reason this question was brought up was because of the ambiguity of the wording. But using proper interpretation, a dash of common sense and a good view of the "Big Picture", we came up with a correct and proper interpretation. The other interpretations, which may have caused the initial confusion, is wrong. Now, if you want to house rule it, or if you want to discuss fair house-rule or coming up with a customized feat - sure, that's great. Let's talk about that. But if you're trying to say that there is legitimacy in the argument that any time the word "Target" comes up in reference to a single creature for any spell, then it can be Chained, then you are wrong. It doesn't matter how you want to splice words or mince the English language. That is not the intention of the Feat and that is a blatantly incorrect interpretation of what it does. |
| Fwib07-27-07, 04:01 PM | I hope lots of people have forwarded this to the Sage so that we can get a nice FAQ answer on it: this seems to be the very definition of what the FAQ is for: clarification. |
| MikeyP07-27-07, 05:04 PM | I think a "Rules of the Game" write-up would be more appropriate. To me it's more official of a clarification, and it's usually expressed with more relevance. Oh, and place me firmly in the camp of targeted spells are spells that specify "Target: ..." Rays are effects and not targeted spells. Those are two completely different types of spells. Sure, a ray could hit a "target" as people have pointed out many times here, but I think that's really more of a difference between rules mechanics ("Target: ....") vs. flavor text to describe rules mechanics. |
| Fwib07-27-07, 06:29 PM | I think a "Rules of the Game" write-up would be more appropriate. To me it's more official of a clarification, and it's usually expressed with more relevance. Oh, and place me firmly in the camp of targeted spells are spells that specify "Target: ..." Rays are effects and not targeted spells. Those are two completely different types of spells. Sure, a ray could hit a "target" as people have pointed out many times here, but I think that's really more of a difference between rules mechanics ("Target: ....") vs. flavor text to describe rules mechanics.The trouble with that is: Several of the Rules of the Game articles have stated things in blatant opposition to what the rules in the books actually say. |
| zorgling2507-27-07, 07:50 PM | The trouble with that is: Several of the Rules of the Game articles have stated things in blatant opposition to what the rules in the books actually say. The only Rules of the Game article I actually consider rules is the one that provides term definitions (e.g. "normal movement"). All the others attempt to interpret things for players/DMs, but end up, intentionally or unintentionally, mis-stating the rules. I have a new way of looking at this. You can chain spells that have EXACTLY one target. You cannot use it on scorching ray because it could potentially have more than one target. By the same token, other rays don't work because you could potentially have ZERO targets. Other standard chainable spells MUST have one target. This bypasses the discussion of whether they mean target as the rule or target as the English word, since the rules state the spell must have exactly one target. |
| Fwib07-27-07, 08:50 PM | The only Rules of the Game article I actually consider rules is the one that provides term definitions (e.g. "normal movement"). All the others attempt to interpret things for players/DMs, but end up, intentionally or unintentionally, mis-stating the rules. I have a new way of looking at this. You can chain spells that have EXACTLY one target. You cannot use it on scorching ray because it could potentially have more than one target. By the same token, other rays don't work because you could potentially have ZERO targets. Other standard chainable spells MUST have one target. This bypasses the discussion of whether they mean target as the rule or target as the English word, since the rules state the spell must have exactly one target.Whoa! I am impressed with that piece of word-fu. What examples of spells are there with exactly one target, but no Target: entry, if any? |
| penchant07-27-07, 10:43 PM | The only Rules of the Game article I actually consider rules is the one that provides term definitions (e.g. "normal movement"). All the others attempt to interpret things for players/DMs, but end up, intentionally or unintentionally, mis-stating the rules. I have a new way of looking at this. You can chain spells that have EXACTLY one target. You cannot use it on scorching ray because it could potentially have more than one target. By the same token, other rays don't work because you could potentially have ZERO targets. Other standard chainable spells MUST have one target. This bypasses the discussion of whether they mean target as the rule or target as the English word, since the rules state the spell must have exactly one target. Ah, see. Now that is an argument that speaks to the discussion and not the assumption. In that light I would have to agree. I still say that people should not be rebuffed for bringing up such a discussion, simply because the larger group has already made its decision. Civil discourse should always be valued or at least respected (see my earlier posts on page 2). |
| zorgling2507-27-07, 10:46 PM | I still say that people should not be rebuffed for bringing up such a discussion, simply because the larger group has already made its decision. Civil discourse should always be valued or at least respected (see my earlier posts on page 2). I agree. People ARE entitled to their own house rules. However, since EVERYBODY has them, the only meaningful rules information that could be discussed on this board is RAW, and sometimes RAI. Once RAW/RAI is established, there are those who still wish to continue the discussion. Seeing that argument about RAW got nowhere with them, I decided to tweak the interpretation to be a bit more user-friendly. |
| Pentar07-28-07, 01:51 AM | Ah, see. Now that is an argument that speaks to the discussion and not the assumption. In that light I would have to agree. I still say that people should not be rebuffed for bringing up such a discussion, simply because the larger group has already made its decision. Civil discourse should always be valued or at least respected (see my earlier posts on page 2). Now I'm truly confused. As Fwib already pointed out... What spells fall into that category that don't have a Target: already listed?? I mean... really - that's part n' parcel of the argument that Rays can hit without LOS, which was mentioned... PAGES ago. |
| zorgling2507-28-07, 01:54 AM | Now I'm truly confused. As Fwib already pointed out... What spells fall into that category that don't have a Target: already listed?? I mean... really - that's part n' parcel of the argument that Rays can hit without LOS, which was mentioned... PAGES ago. There are none. Thats the point. This argument is just a way to speak on the level of those who, from a flavor standpoint, still think rays can be chained. |
| penchant07-28-07, 11:50 AM | If you don't understand the difference, then you just didn't know what I was talking about. Sorry. Its somantics. |
| monkeybone07-28-07, 12:39 PM | Semantics. |
| penchant07-28-07, 03:30 PM | Don't correct me. It sickens me!:D |
| MikeyP07-28-07, 04:11 PM | The trouble with that is: Several of the Rules of the Game articles have stated things in blatant opposition to what the rules in the books actually say. No kidding? I never caught that. Any chance you could let me know what those are? |
| Fwib07-29-07, 07:32 AM | No kidding? I never caught that. Any chance you could let me know what those are?I confess, my information is somewhat second-hand. I remember reading posts/rants where it has been claimed that 'X in a rules of the game article violates Y', and I think I remember looking at the article and agreeing, but I can't remember precisely what articles. Sometime I shall have to read through all of the articles with my rules head on. However: here is a simple example, which had not been corrected when I just checked it: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=888932 |
| Werebat07-29-07, 12:28 PM | Ah, I thought Prismatic Ray was a lower level spell... but regardless, there's no argument about Chaining a Ray of Stupidity or Ray of Exhaustion? Hey, why no love for Chained Ray of Dizziness? It sure shuts down those melee types. - Ron ^*^ |
| Werebat07-29-07, 12:32 PM | Getting away from picking apart the RAW bit by bit, try thinking of it in mechanics form. A ray doesn't target squat. You point your hand, a ray shoots out, it hits something, disappates, and does it's magic. How would this ray hit something, disappate, then reform to hit something in an entire different direction? Granted, this is without even taking Warlocks into consideration, but Warlocks weren't around when the PHB was being written, were they? Ah, but they were, I think, presented in the same book that featured Chain Spell (CA). - Ron ^*^ |
| zorgling2507-29-07, 12:33 PM | Hey, why no love for Chained Ray of Dizziness? It sure shuts down those melee types. - Ron ^*^ Rays can't be chained, period, for the two following reasons: 1) They don't have a Target: Line and therefore don't target. 2) If you don't believe that, then they still can't be chained because a chain spell must have exactly one target, and all rays have the option of having zero targets. |
| Werebat07-29-07, 12:40 PM | Rays can't be chained, period, for the two following reasons: 1) They don't have a Target: Line and therefore don't target. 2) If you don't believe that, then they still can't be chained because a chain spell must have exactly one target, and all rays have the option of having zero targets. Context. - Ron ^*^ |
| Nezkrul07-29-07, 03:19 PM | Ill concede on the "everyone's got houserules" post. It is true. And if penchant were running a game for me, I'd make him change his mind :D Chained Ray of Stupidity ftw. |
| penchant07-29-07, 06:50 PM | Ill concede on the "everyone's got houserules" post. It is true. And if penchant were running a game for me, I'd make him change his mind :D Chained Ray of Stupidity ftw. Intelligence damage is good, but you just aren't going to get that much play with the secondary targets. They take half damage and most groups you are fighting will not be very affected by a couple of points of INt damage per round. And how many of those 5th level spells are you going to cast? There might be a few int based spell casters in a group, but most of the creatures will only get more dangerous with the spell. The only exception are animals, which it could be very effective against. |