Chain spell and buffs

[Mechanize]

Someone here suggested I look into chain spell for my cleric, and to be honest, the spell choices to use seem lame. Almost everything in a clerics spell list is touch/personal at my level. I also dont have any access to a database of spells that would make this search easier. I need to know if there are any level 1-3 cleric spells worth taking the 2 feats for DMM:Chain. Dispel magic was the only one I saw really worth it so far, the rest seem situational. Maybe Chain is better with higher level spells...

[erok0809]

If you get reach spell, you should be able chain touch spells as well, since it makes them into a ray.

[LTwerewolf]

There are a few decent low level spells that work. Greater magic weapon is a good one (level 4 for you I know). One of my favorite is to get nerveskitter via extra spell or something like that and chain that for +5 initiative to the entire party. Chained death ward is a full spell level more efficient than mass death ward. Strength domain gets you enlarge person which is usable with it. Dispel magic is another that works well.

You can also combine it with the reach spell feat and chain a lot more spells, like bull's strength.

[Mechanize]

Do you think it is worth 7 turn attempts (chain and reach) to hit everyone with a weak level 1-3 spell? This is not going to be a high level character, prob no access to night sticks. Playing for mid game here... levels 5-12. I want the PC to be fun and useful now, not a long time from now.

[LTwerewolf]

Action economy can make a big difference, I'd burn 6 turn attempts (1+2+3) to not have to use multiple turns to set things up or to have the entire party with +5 initiative. Especially at low levels that +5 can more than double some people's modifiers.

You can also reduce the metamagic cost using things like practical metamagic to bring them down lower. With 2 flaws at level 6 as a silverblood human, you could be spending 4 turn attempts (the same as regular dmm chain) for a chain reach spell.

Note: To get it reduced that much by 6 you'd use easy metamagic, not practical as practical requires spellcraft 8. That said, you can stack the two together for further reductions (spending 2 turns at that point).

[Gallowglass]

chain spell - "Only spells with an area or defined number of targets (including one creature), a range greater than touch, and a saving throw (for half damage, or to negate the full effect of the spell) may be cast as chain spells"

Nerveskitter - Saving Throw: None (harmless)
Greater Magic Weapon - Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless, object)
Death ward - Range: Touch

so Greater Magic Weapon works, but nerveskitter and death ward do not work by the rules. Reach spell would make deathward work I suppose by turning it into a ray, but nerveskitter is still a no go.

I don't think chain spell is a great spell for Clerics because clerics are more about buffs (which tend to be touch and some have save: none) and touch attacks than non touch attack spells (which is what chain was built for, even if it can be subverted to work with greater magic weapon and a few other buffs) Its a lot of feats and a lot of turns to get something that will only be useful to you very rarely.

[LTwerewolf]

I think you need to look at the complete arcane version, not the tome and blood version to make sure you have your facts right. My book in front of me says nothing about requiring a save, nor does the errata.

Any spell that specifies a single target and has
a range greater than touch can be chained so as to affect
that primary target normally, then arc to a number of
secondary targets equal to your caster level (maximum
20)


Actually Not even the tome and blood version says that, so I have no idea where you're getting that from.

[Aracor]

If you get reach spell, you should be able chain touch spells as well, since it makes them into a ray.

You cannot chain a ray spell. A ray spell has no target, it is an Effect: Ray spell. That's why you can miss with them.

~Aracor

[LTwerewolf]

You cannot chain a ray spell. A ray spell has no target, it is an Effect: Ray spell. That's why you can miss with them.

~Aracor

A ray spell has a target. That's why you make a touch attack. You can't make a touch attack with no target.

[Gallowglass]

I was quoting the pathfinder srd version because that's what we play. *shrug* there was no 3.5 or pathfinder tag on the thread. I suppose as nerveskitter is not a pathfinder spell I should have not assumed the pathfinder chain spell was the same as the 3.5 version.

Good point about the ray spells. Guess that doesn't work either.

[LTwerewolf]

Pathfinder doesn't have the divine metamagic feat, so safe to assume it's 3.5.

[Aracor]

A ray spell has a target. That's why you make a touch attack. You can't make a touch attack with no target.
Please show me where the target is listed in this spell:


Ray of Frost
Evocation [Cold]
Level: Sor/Wiz 0
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: Ray
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes

A ray of freezing air and ice projects from your pointing finger. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack with the ray to deal damage to a target. The ray deals 1d3 points of cold damage.

Because I have to admit I don't see it. Target has a specific definition as far as spells are concerned.

~Aracor

[LTwerewolf]

It says a spell that affects a single target, not a spell that has a specific target. There's a difference. Ray spells affect a single target. Points on unwarranted snarkiness though, that always makes discussions better.

Unless you would like to make the argument that ray spells don't in fact affect a target because it doesn't have the line target, in which case no ray spell in the game actually works.

[Deophaun]

A ray spell has a target. That's why you make a touch attack. You can't make a touch attack with no target.
But it does not have a defined number of targets. They're just rays. This is more clear in 3.5, where it must be "Any spell that specifies a single target," which ray spells almost universally do not as they lack the target lines to specify anything.

However, this is moot for the point of PF's Reach Spell, as PF's Reach Spell doesn't turn the spell into a ray. It also doesn't have much of an impact on 3.5's version, because while most ray spells lack a target line, there is nothing inherent about rays that makes them incompatible with them (I think rust ray is a ray spell that has a target line).

[LTwerewolf]

Again, when talking divine metamagic we should assume 3.5 feat rules. Also the ray spells that don't hit a single target specifically call out that they do so, making that a specific rule and that it targets 1 the general rule.

[Gallowglass]

Hilarious how LTWerewolf calls you out for snark when he was just snarky to me in not one but TWO posts before that. LOL. Classic.

RAI, I certainly would let the 3.5 reach (which turns it into a ray apparently) work with chain, but RAW it seems pretty broken.

what? metamagic feats that have broken rules? whaaaat? never.

[dextercorvia]

Do you think it is worth 7 turn attempts (chain and reach) to hit everyone with a weak level 1-3 spell? This is not going to be a high level character, prob no access to night sticks. Playing for mid game here... levels 5-12. I want the PC to be fun and useful now, not a long time from now.

You can't DMM Chain and Reach in the same turn. DMM is a divine feat, and you can only use divine feats (or collectively any expenditure of turn/rebuke attempts) once per turn. (CDiv 77)

I've played around with the Chain Cleric, and it doesn't get useful until you have a way to get around the touch range of so many of your spells.

[Zaq]

It's debatable whether Reach Spell actually turns touch spells into rays, since WotC forgot (of course) that they wrote the rules of magic in a funny way and that rays are technically "Effect: Ray" and not "Target: One creature you hit with a ray."

Reach Spell specifies that "the spell effectively becomes a ray," but it doesn't actually say that it rewrites the spell's Target line to change it from "Target: Creature touched" to "Effect: Ray." It does say that the range changes, and it does say that you have to succeed at the RTA to affect someone, but it doesn't say that the spell no longer has a Target line and now has an Effect line.

It's absolutely an ugly bit of rules snarl, and I wouldn't fault a GM for ruling either way. But it's by no means ironclad that Reach Spell doesn't work with Chain Spell.

[LTwerewolf]

That wasn't snark, that was me saying they needed to look at the most updated version, not knowing that they were instead using the pathfinder version. You may flavor my comments as you wish, but it doesn't seem the person I was talking to took it that way since we clarified it and continued.

[Deophaun]

Again, when talking divine metamagic we should assume 3.5 feat rules.
Which is worse for your argument, because 3.5 is far more clear that the spell must specify a single target. Being silent and leaving it up to impliction is not specifying.

Again, though, it doesn't matter: Applying either the 3.5 or PF version of Reach Spell to a spell with a target line does not somehow delete the target line.

[Aracor]

It says a spell that affects a single target, not a spell that has a specific target. There's a difference. Ray spells affect a single target. Points on unwarranted snarkiness though, that always makes discussions better.

Unless you would like to make the argument that ray spells don't in fact affect a target because it doesn't have the line target, in which case no ray spell in the game actually works.

Again, target has a specific definition where spells are concerned. And rays do not have a target. If they did, you wouldn't need to make a touch attack. A ray is point and click. You fire it in a direction, and it may or may not hit what it's aiming at. Are you suggesting that if a ray misses, that it never had a target?

Daze has a target.

Daze
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 0, Sor/Wiz 0
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One humanoid creature of 4 HD or less
Duration: 1 round
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

This enchantment clouds the mind of a humanoid creature with 4 or fewer Hit Dice so that it takes no actions. Humanoids of 5 or more HD are not affected. A dazed subject is not stunned, so attackers get no special advantage against it.
Material Component

A pinch of wool or similar substance.

As additional evidence: (spoilered for length)

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.

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.
As stated here, if a spell has a target, you must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. The only way a ray can fit that definition of having a target is if i you cannot shoot a ray at someone who has total concealment with a 50% miss chance assuming you hit the correct square. Since it's a ranged touch attack, you clearly can do that. This description clearly differentiates between a targeted spell and an effect: ray spell.

~Aracor

[LTwerewolf]

You can't DMM Chain and Reach in the same turn. DMM is a divine feat, and you can only use divine feats (or collectively any expenditure of turn/rebuke attempts) once per turn. (CDiv 77)

This is a much better argument as to why it doesn't work, because he's right. Ray spells are weaponlike spells and use rules for those. Ranged weapons have a target. Thus ray spells have a target.

[Deophaun]

It's debatable whether Reach Spell actually turns touch spells into rays, since WotC forgot (of course) that they wrote the rules of magic in a funny way and that rays are technically "Effect: Ray" and not "Target: One creature you hit with a ray."
That's like saying "WoTC forgot rays are technically 'Effect: Ray' and not 'Saving Throw: None.'" One has nothing to do with the other, as seen here:

RUST RAY
Transmutation
Level: Sorcerer/wizard 3
...
Effect: Ray
Target: One nonmagical ferrous object or one ferrous creature
...

Look! It's a ray with a single target! Shocking!

[Deophaun]

Again, target has a specific definition where spells are concerned.
Not really, no. "Target" gets used willy-nilly and applied to spells that do not have Target lines. Just look at the Dread Witch's Fearful Empowerment ability, which you can apply to summon monster. (It's the same with the word "effect." Check out Invisible Spell and how it interacts with the "effect" of a spell that has no Effect line.) It's the word "specify" that is key here.

[Aracor]

Not really, no. "Target" gets used willy-nilly and applied to spells that do not have Target lines. Just look at the Dread Witch's Fearful Empowerment ability, which you can apply to summon monster. (It's the same with the word "effect." Check out Invisible Spell and how it interacts with the "effect" of a spell that has no Effect line.) It's the word "specify" that is key here.

It does get used improperly in many places (such as ray of rust, which based on the spell description would work for chain), but my spoilered quote actually does have a specific definition of target.

[Deophaun]

It does get used improperly in many places (such as ray of rust, which based on the spell description would work for chain), but my spoilered quote actually does have a specific definition of target.

No, it doesn't. It has a definition for defined targets, which, as we see with Reach Spell, is an important distinction.

[Gallowglass]

That wasn't snark, that was me saying they needed to look at the most updated version, not knowing that they were instead using the pathfinder version. You may flavor my comments as you wish, but it doesn't seem the person I was talking to took it that way since we clarified it and continued.

Sure.


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've been reading a lot of online discussion about this and it seems this is a long time contentious argument. Can you chain rays? We are rehashing all the points that have been hashed before. It doesn't look like the authority behind the rules have published a final word on it, so its still in the "I'm right! you are dumb!" stage of arguments.

Side one: Ray spells (with at least one exception) don't specify a target so they don't work with chain spell.
Side two: Ray spells are ranged attacks, so the target line is missing from the spell because its "implied" as it is with a normal attack.

From my perspective, I side with side one. It seems to me that the creator of the feat probably INTENDED for chain spell to NOT work with ray spells. Probably they should've just stated it rather than trying to build a rule around it. Maybe the creator INTENDED for it to work with ray spells, but the evidence seems more compelling to the other way to me.

I think the rust ray either had a target line by bad writing, or they did it to cut off the "I hit the eiffel tower with ray of rusting!" "okay, one beam starts rusting" "nu-uh! it should rust the whole thing"

That being said, I will say that Zaq's post was the most compelling argument for side two. Following his logic, if you COULD apply two DMM to one spell (which you apparently can't... can you use rods?) I would suggest that you COULD reach and chain a spell (because its LIKE a ray, not actually a ray, so the target line doesn't get erased) but you can't just chain a spell that is naturally a ray. (except apparently ray of rust that is written differently)

which, now that I jumped through those gymnastics reminds me why I hate RAW arguments.

All of that shoved to the side. If I was DMing? Yeah I'd let chain work with rays, but you have to make the ranged touch attacks one at a time and if you miss one it stops the chain. That seems common sense.

[Zaq]

That's like saying "WoTC forgot rays are technically 'Effect: Ray' and not 'Saving Throw: None.'" One has nothing to do with the other, as seen here:

Look! It's a ray with a single target! Shocking!

That's basically what I was saying. I don't think we actually disagree.


Sure.



I've been reading a lot of online discussion about this and it seems this is a long time contentious argument. Can you chain rays? We are rehashing all the points that have been hashed before. It doesn't look like the authority behind the rules have published a final word on it, so its still in the "I'm right! you are dumb!" stage of arguments.

Side one: Ray spells (with at least one exception) don't specify a target so they don't work with chain spell.
Side two: Ray spells are ranged attacks, so the target line is missing from the spell because its "implied" as it is with a normal attack.

From my perspective, I side with side one. It seems to me that the creator of the feat probably INTENDED for chain spell to NOT work with ray spells. Probably they should've just stated it rather than trying to build a rule around it. Maybe the creator INTENDED for it to work with ray spells, but the evidence seems more compelling to the other way to me.

I think the rust ray either had a target line by bad writing, or they did it to cut off the "I hit the eiffel tower with ray of rusting!" "okay, one beam starts rusting" "nu-uh! it should rust the whole thing"

That being said, I will say that Zaq's post was the most compelling argument for side two. Following his logic, if you COULD apply two DMM to one spell (which you apparently can't... can you use rods?) I would suggest that you COULD reach and chain a spell (because its LIKE a ray, not actually a ray, so the target line doesn't get erased) but you can't just chain a spell that is naturally a ray. (except apparently ray of rust that is written differently)

which, now that I jumped through those gymnastics reminds me why I hate RAW arguments.

All of that shoved to the side. If I was DMing? Yeah I'd let chain work with rays, but you have to make the ranged touch attacks one at a time and if you miss one it stops the chain. That seems common sense.

Thanks. Even if Reach Spell actually does cause the spell to become a ray, there isn't an overarching general rule that explicitly states that rays do not have Target lines. (Looking at PHB pg. 175, the fact that the Ray entry is under the Effect subheading rather than the Target subheading is certainly in line with the fact that Rays do not usually have Target lines, but there's no rule explicitly saying that rays CANNOT have Target lines.) And, as we've seen, Ray of Rust shows us at least one example of a ray that does have a Target line. Since Reach Spell does not say that it removes the spell's Target line, and there's no rule saying that a ray CANNOT have a Target line, I think it's pretty clear that something affected by Reach Spell still has a Target line, no matter whether it's actually a ray or just "effectively" a ray.

I'm not going to argue that most normal rays are valid for Chain Spell (it seems to me that they generally wouldn't work), but it seems to be the case that Reach Spell does work with Chain Spell as written (even if you have to actually pay for the metamagic normally and/or find a second workaround other than DMM).

I will repeat that it's a very ugly case of rules possibly interacting in ways that the designers didn't intend, and I will repeat that I wouldn't judge a GM too harshly for making a ruling one way or the other (so long as they were up-front about it). But I think that the specific case of Reach Spell + Chain Spell does work, even if the general case of Chain Spell + normal ray doesn't work. (Whether it's worth the effort is another matter entirely, of course.)

[Mechanize]

All this arguing about ray spells and it doesn't matter to me because I asked about buffs in the subject. I took a flaw against ranged attacks and thus rays... Just asking if there were any good level 1-3 buffs... so no greater weapon, or magic vestments... lvl 1-3... buffs... that work with chain... go go go! :P

[sleepyphoenixx]

There are quite a few low level spells that are worth chaining, but few are in core.
I'm AFB at the moment, but Close Wounds, Delay Death, Blood Wind, Ray of Hope and Ray of Resurgence come to mind.

And it's not like you're going to use those turn attempts for anything else in most cases. The only concern is the feat cost, and getting a Close Wounds or Delay Death to your whole party with an immediate action is worth quite a bit when it comes up.
Getting Ray of Hope and similar buffs on everyone for a single slot instead of 4 or more is also pretty valuable.

[Segev]

You could always try to talk your DM into reassigning the Cure and Inflict line to Necromancy, as in older editions, and then get a bunch of Slaymates together to knock the metamagic level adjustments down.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

If you haven't chosen your domains yet, there are all sorts of domain spells you could use.

A Chained Reach polymorph could seriously up your buffing potential, for instance.

[Mechanize]

Thank you sleepy, I looked those spells up and they are definitely good choices for my current level.

Any others?

No clue what a slay mate is Segev