I'm finding several things that seem to worded in an ambiguous way in the spell description for Chain Lightning is worded:
1. The lightening doesn't jump to up to three other targets, if the original target makes the DEX save, correct? (What if there is immunity to lightning damage? I assume that there would also be no lightning jumping to other targets) 2. The damage is rolled just once, but the entire amount of damage is sustained by all the targets and is not divided among the targets, right? 3. The up to 3 additional targets also make a DEX save and take full damage on a fail and 1/2 damage on a successful save, right?
So having an initial target is a lot for flavor and maybe a little of defining the 30 ft radus target area, but otherwise, all 4 are treated exactly the same? thank you, I totally didn't get that, and I suppose I do feel a tiny bit disappointed that that's what that means. Possibly a little meh compared to other 6th level spells?
1. The caster chooses a Primary Target which can be up to 150 feet away.
2. The caster chooses 3 Secondary Targets, each which can be up to 30 feet away from the Primary Target.
3. The caster rolls 10d8 to determine the damage done from the spell.
4. The DM rolls the saves for the Primary Target and all Secondary Targets.
5. If a Target failed the save, it takes all of the damage you rolled in Step 3. If a Target succeeds on the save, it takes half (rounded down) of the damage you rolled in step 3. EDIT: Now this is where Resistances or Immunity come into play. Only after the Targets are chosen, damage is rolled, and saves are made does the DM apply Resistances or Immunity to the damage taken.
6. Spell ends
If you upcast the spell, you can have up to 6 Secondary Targets (e.g. the number of Secondary Targets in Step 2 can be 4 if casting with 7th Level slot, 5 if 8th Level slot, and 6 if 9th Level slot).
That's how I would adjudicate it at my table. Hope that helps! I think it's a pretty good spell. Hitting 4 creatures for at least 5d8 in one action isn't horrible.
Another minor advantage of this spell is, that you have something like an area of effect, without the risk of hitting someone else in that area. And you can target objects with it.
AtlanticRim did a good job of explaining the mechanics.
The advantages of chain lightning are:
- Targets don't need to be in a line - they just need to be within 30' of the primary target.
- No friendly fire - only the targets chosen are affected - it is not an AoE
- It does 10d8 vs 8d6 for lightning bolt which is a substantial bump in damage (45 vs 28 on average) - even a level 6 lightning bolt is only 11d6 or 38.5 average.
- targeting objects is a really minor benefit in most cases.
Chain lightning doesn't have the rider effect of igniting flammable objects but if the spell was targeted on an object I would probably house rule that as ok depending on the circumstances.
So having an initial target is a lot for flavor and maybe a little of defining the 30 ft radus target area, but otherwise, all 4 are treated exactly the same? thank you, I totally didn't get that, and I suppose I do feel a tiny bit disappointed that that's what that means. Possibly a little meh compared to other 6th level spells?
I don't understand - the spell is significantly better than you thought, and you're disappointed by that? What are the other 6th level spells you're talking about? Chain Lightning does more damage per target than any other 6th level AoE spell, and it does so without endangering your allies. The only 6th level or lower spells I see that deal more average damage (barring Animate Objects cheese) are Disintegrate and Harm, and they do it to single targets only.
Yeah, that was probably inconsistent on my part, sorry. I think there's something I just don't like about this spell. Maybe more that it doesn't completely make sense to me. If it were't for the half damage on a successful save, I would think that a successful save meant that the spell didn't "hit" the first target and therefore the lightning didn't hit/strick the first target, and that therefore the lighting wouldn't travel from the first target to other targets, potentially hitting them for full damage. The fact that the 1st target takes half damage on a successful save (and I'm okay with that part, if that's as far as it goes) . . but then the 1/2 damage combined with the fact that it travels to other targets, that seems weird, no matter what the official rule is on what happens next: travels from the 1st target to other targets even though it "missed" hitting/striking the first target: weird . . .doesn't travel from the 1st target to other targets even though the first target took 1/2 damage: also weird. Maybe the saving grace in all of this is that weird stuff can happen when creatures and objects get struck by lightning or when lightning strikes near them. I guess I will just imagine 3 other creatures within 30 ft, standing on soggy ground, and try to remember that lightning is weird.
I would think that a successful save meant that the spell didn't "hit" the first target
This is one of the problems when the rules get a bit too abstract.
While mechanically failing to equal or beat a target's AC with an attack means you "missed", narratively it's not so simple as AC can be either dodging or armour (or a combination of both). A heavily armoured paladin in full plate with a shield probably didn't dodge your attack, you probably hit them quite easily, but you failed to hit a weakness between the armour plates.
In a similar way a successful Dexterity saving throw on the first target doesn't necessarily mean you missed the target, it just means you didn't fully hit them. Maybe you only struck them a glancing blow (for half damage) before the lightning arced off as normal. Or if the target were a Rogue with Evasion (no damage on success) maybe they dodged it completely but it still struck something else to create the arcs onto the secondary targets?
Also it's magic, so it might function more strangely than we expect; maybe the lightning splits before it actually reaches the initial target, e.g- in the air above them?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Thank you all for explaining it (totally not on you that the spell's effect still seems werid to me)
Perhaps think of it this way - the caster aims the spell at a particular target and then guides the discharge to three other nearby targets (since the caster chooses them). The electricity discharges following the path to the first target then leaping to the others that are within 30' of the first. However, how much that electrical discharge affects each creature is resolved individually. Each target is exposed to a similar electrical discharge, guided by the caster, that hits the initial target and then jumps to three others (thus the chain effect of chain lightning) but how harmful that discharge is to each of the creatures in the way can be different and how much the others are affected has no effect on other creatures since the amount of lightning flowing to each is the same.
A spell that functions kind of like you are imagining would be Chaos Bolt that can jump to another target depending on whether the two damage die rolled are the same.
A bit late to the party. But people in this thread seem to assume many things which aren't specified in the description. For example, the spell specifies that you choose a target withtin 150 feet that you can see. Ok thats fine, but the spell doesnt specify that you can choose the other 3 targets. Nor does it specify that you must have line of sight with them. The spell simply doesnt answer how these 3 extra targets are chosen. So it's the dm's call. The fact that this spell allows for objects to be targets tells me that one way of using this is by targetting an object that the enemies are using to hide behind, like a pole, a rock, or something like that. Then the lighting bounces to 3 targets that _you don't need to be seeing_ aka the creatures hiding behind this object. Lets say there are more than 3 creatures or maybe a few smaller objects behind this bigger object the creatures are hiding behind. You (the caster) are only seeing the bigger object. You shoot the Lighting, and it bounces. how do you choose these targets that you just can't see? I'd rule it by choosing randomly (by a dice roll of course). So this spell, while cool, has more nuances that initially thought. Of course, if you rule it that the 3 extra targets can be chosen by the caster aswell, then you would agree that the caster needs line of sight with them.
A bit late to the party. But people in this thread seem to assume many things which aren't specified in the description. For example, the spell specifies that you choose a target withtin 150 feet that you can see. Ok thats fine, but the spell doesnt specify that you can choose the other 3 targets. Nor does it specify that you must have line of sight with them. The spell simply doesnt answer how these 3 extra targets are chosen. So it's the dm's call. The fact that this spell allows for objects to be targets tells me that one way of using this is by targetting an object that the enemies are using to hide behind, like a pole, a rock, or something like that. Then the lighting bounces to 3 targets that _you don't need to be seeing_ aka the creatures hiding behind this object. Lets say there are more than 3 creatures or maybe a few smaller objects behind this bigger object the creatures are hiding behind. You (the caster) are only seeing the bigger object. You shoot the Lighting, and it bounces. how do you choose these targets that you just can't see? I'd rule it by choosing randomly (by a dice roll of course). So this spell, while cool, has more nuances that initially thought. Of course, if you rule it that the 3 extra targets can be chosen by the caster aswell, then you would agree that the caster needs line of sight with them.
I agree. The spell doesn't explicitly state that the caster chooses the additional targets affected nor that they have to see them. The spell wording uses "target" for both the first target and every other target.
"You create a bolt of lightning that arcs toward a target of your choice that you can see within range. Three bolts then leap from that target to as many as three other targets, each of which must be within 30 feet of the first target. A target can be a creature or an object and can be targeted by only one of the bolts."
My ruling would be that the targeting by the caster for both the initial and subsequent targets is implied. The caster chooses the first target they can see and other creatures or objects (that they can also see) within 30' that they want to be affected by the spell.
Part of the problem with "randomly" selecting targets as you suggest is that the spell will target objects. Tables, chairs, a mirror on a wall, a bucket, rope, a dropped rake, spent arrows, a door, a window, a ladder, a hat sitting on the ground, a discarded pair of shoes, some rags sitting in a corner - the world is filled with far more objects than opposing creatures. Combats don't usually occur in clean rooms where there are stone walls and creatures and that is all. In addition, there could be rats, spiders, insects, and all sorts of other small creatures also within the area of effect. If the DM wants to run the spell where other "targets" are randomly selected then the huge number of possible targets in any realistic scenario means that the creatures that the caster likely wants to effect are unlikely to ever be affected.
This would be my main reason to go with the caster choosing both the initial target and the secondary ones based on what they can see since it really doesn't make much sense otherwise. In addition, it is a 6th level spell, I don't see any reason to make it less effective by forcing the secondary targets to be chosen randomly.
Casting the spell at a visible target to try to affect creatures you can't see sounds cool but I don't think it would generally work given the very large number of possible random targets that the spell could target in such a circumstance.
Yeah. I do agree its underwhelming given that there can be many objects around. Maybe the extra targets can be prioritized to be creatures by the caster's choice? Since its ambiguous, it could be ruled like that too. That can be a huge difference. I don't understand why exactly does the spell allows for objects to be targets if it isn't something like I mentioned earlier. Or for what reason would anyone want to target an object with this spell. Weird.
I agree with Grendel's interpretation here. We only have control when casting the spell at the target that we choose, which happens instantaneously. At this point, we are no longer interacting with this lightning and lightning behaves in chaotic and unpredictable ways -- including potential friendly fire.
I think that, by design, the spell is supposed to be more effective in certain environments -- such as in wide open outdoor environments. So, there is some decision making involved as to when is the best opportunity to use this spell. There was a thread recently -- I can't remember the name of the spell but it essentially created a big storm cloud overhead and lightning would shoot downwards from the cloud. It turns out that if you try to cast that in an indoor environment there is a chance that the spell just fails because there is not enough room to actually hold the cloud. I think that this is similar -- if you attempt to use this in certain indoor environments there is a much larger chance that the lightning does not behave the way that you hope it will.
I do think that it should be fair to be able to ask the DM in advance which objects you can see in the nearby area. The DM might even ask for a perception roll or something if there is some chance that you might have missed seeing some objects in the heat of the battle, but mostly the DM should give you this information -- and whether or not the chances for hitting each object is equal or weighted by size or material or whatever the DM decides. Perhaps the DM can quickly create a D100 table for what the lightning might hit and you can then make your decision. One way or another, the spell description is open ended enough that the DM is clearly meant to play a roll in determining the outcome of this spell.
I agree :) ... DM can choose to run it whichever way they prefer but they should let the player know how they will be running it. The spell doesn't state how the supplemental targets are selected so it is really a DM call as to whether they want the caster to choose, the DM chooses, the decision is made randomly, and what items/creatures/objects within the 30' constitute possible targets.
I could see myself running it one of several ways depending on the game and players but I'd let them know how it will be run in that game before it is cast for the first time.
1) Caster decides what targets it hits and is required to see them all.
2) Caster chooses first target, creature or object,
a) the spell strikes the next nearest 3 creatures of at least size small or larger.
b) the spell strikes the next nearest 3 creatures/objects
c) the spell strikes the next nearest 3 creatures that are in contact with the ground
The main problem with 2 is that there are an effectively infinite number of ways to decide the additional 3 targets.
In addition, the spell text says "up to" 3 additional targets. Does the caster decide how many additional targets? Does the DM decide based on the number of "valid" targets based on whatever algorithm they have chosen for deciding valid targets? :)
For a relatively simple spell, the procedure to choose the additional targets can become very complicated in this case ... though I completely agree that it is a valid interpretation of the spell.
Is there any reason this sspell would appear for a level two wizard in character creator? I have this exact description for a spell called Lightning Arc as a 1st level spell.
Is there any reason this sspell would appear for a level two wizard in character creator? I have this exact description for a spell called Lightning Arc as a 1st level spell.
You or somebody you're in the campaign with has it in their homebrew collection. All homebrew in everybody's collections is shared, and there's no off switch. It's not ideal.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm finding several things that seem to worded in an ambiguous way in the spell description for Chain Lightning is worded:
1. The lightening doesn't jump to up to three other targets, if the original target makes the DEX save, correct? (What if there is immunity to lightning damage? I assume that there would also be no lightning jumping to other targets)
2. The damage is rolled just once, but the entire amount of damage is sustained by all the targets and is not divided among the targets, right?
3. The up to 3 additional targets also make a DEX save and take full damage on a fail and 1/2 damage on a successful save, right?
Not quite.
You chose one primary target and up to 3 secondary targets.
All targets make a DEX save for half damage.
All targets suffer 10d8 lightning damage.
Sucessful saves or immunities do not matter for which targets you can hit.
Might as well just call it mass lightning at that point. Very much sad.
So having an initial target is a lot for flavor and maybe a little of defining the 30 ft radus target area, but otherwise, all 4 are treated exactly the same? thank you, I totally didn't get that, and I suppose I do feel a tiny bit disappointed that that's what that means. Possibly a little meh compared to other 6th level spells?
1. The caster chooses a Primary Target which can be up to 150 feet away.
2. The caster chooses 3 Secondary Targets, each which can be up to 30 feet away from the Primary Target.
3. The caster rolls 10d8 to determine the damage done from the spell.
4. The DM rolls the saves for the Primary Target and all Secondary Targets.
5. If a Target failed the save, it takes all of the damage you rolled in Step 3. If a Target succeeds on the save, it takes half (rounded down) of the damage you rolled in step 3. EDIT: Now this is where Resistances or Immunity come into play. Only after the Targets are chosen, damage is rolled, and saves are made does the DM apply Resistances or Immunity to the damage taken.
6. Spell ends
If you upcast the spell, you can have up to 6 Secondary Targets (e.g. the number of Secondary Targets in Step 2 can be 4 if casting with 7th Level slot, 5 if 8th Level slot, and 6 if 9th Level slot).
That's how I would adjudicate it at my table. Hope that helps! I think it's a pretty good spell. Hitting 4 creatures for at least 5d8 in one action isn't horrible.
Another minor advantage of this spell is, that you have something like an area of effect, without the risk of hitting someone else in that area. And you can target objects with it.
AtlanticRim did a good job of explaining the mechanics.
The advantages of chain lightning are:
- Targets don't need to be in a line - they just need to be within 30' of the primary target.
- No friendly fire - only the targets chosen are affected - it is not an AoE
- It does 10d8 vs 8d6 for lightning bolt which is a substantial bump in damage (45 vs 28 on average) - even a level 6 lightning bolt is only 11d6 or 38.5 average.
- targeting objects is a really minor benefit in most cases.
Chain lightning doesn't have the rider effect of igniting flammable objects but if the spell was targeted on an object I would probably house rule that as ok depending on the circumstances.
I don't understand - the spell is significantly better than you thought, and you're disappointed by that? What are the other 6th level spells you're talking about? Chain Lightning does more damage per target than any other 6th level AoE spell, and it does so without endangering your allies. The only 6th level or lower spells I see that deal more average damage (barring Animate Objects cheese) are Disintegrate and Harm, and they do it to single targets only.
Yeah, that was probably inconsistent on my part, sorry. I think there's something I just don't like about this spell. Maybe more that it doesn't completely make sense to me. If it were't for the half damage on a successful save, I would think that a successful save meant that the spell didn't "hit" the first target and therefore the lightning didn't hit/strick the first target, and that therefore the lighting wouldn't travel from the first target to other targets, potentially hitting them for full damage. The fact that the 1st target takes half damage on a successful save (and I'm okay with that part, if that's as far as it goes) . . but then the 1/2 damage combined with the fact that it travels to other targets, that seems weird, no matter what the official rule is on what happens next: travels from the 1st target to other targets even though it "missed" hitting/striking the first target: weird . . .doesn't travel from the 1st target to other targets even though the first target took 1/2 damage: also weird. Maybe the saving grace in all of this is that weird stuff can happen when creatures and objects get struck by lightning or when lightning strikes near them. I guess I will just imagine 3 other creatures within 30 ft, standing on soggy ground, and try to remember that lightning is weird.
Thank you all for explaining it (totally not on you that the spell's effect still seems werid to me)
This is one of the problems when the rules get a bit too abstract.
While mechanically failing to equal or beat a target's AC with an attack means you "missed", narratively it's not so simple as AC can be either dodging or armour (or a combination of both). A heavily armoured paladin in full plate with a shield probably didn't dodge your attack, you probably hit them quite easily, but you failed to hit a weakness between the armour plates.
In a similar way a successful Dexterity saving throw on the first target doesn't necessarily mean you missed the target, it just means you didn't fully hit them. Maybe you only struck them a glancing blow (for half damage) before the lightning arced off as normal. Or if the target were a Rogue with Evasion (no damage on success) maybe they dodged it completely but it still struck something else to create the arcs onto the secondary targets?
Also it's magic, so it might function more strangely than we expect; maybe the lightning splits before it actually reaches the initial target, e.g- in the air above them?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Perhaps think of it this way - the caster aims the spell at a particular target and then guides the discharge to three other nearby targets (since the caster chooses them). The electricity discharges following the path to the first target then leaping to the others that are within 30' of the first. However, how much that electrical discharge affects each creature is resolved individually. Each target is exposed to a similar electrical discharge, guided by the caster, that hits the initial target and then jumps to three others (thus the chain effect of chain lightning) but how harmful that discharge is to each of the creatures in the way can be different and how much the others are affected has no effect on other creatures since the amount of lightning flowing to each is the same.
A spell that functions kind of like you are imagining would be Chaos Bolt that can jump to another target depending on whether the two damage die rolled are the same.
A bit late to the party. But people in this thread seem to assume many things which aren't specified in the description. For example, the spell specifies that you choose a target withtin 150 feet that you can see. Ok thats fine, but the spell doesnt specify that you can choose the other 3 targets. Nor does it specify that you must have line of sight with them. The spell simply doesnt answer how these 3 extra targets are chosen. So it's the dm's call. The fact that this spell allows for objects to be targets tells me that one way of using this is by targetting an object that the enemies are using to hide behind, like a pole, a rock, or something like that. Then the lighting bounces to 3 targets that _you don't need to be seeing_ aka the creatures hiding behind this object. Lets say there are more than 3 creatures or maybe a few smaller objects behind this bigger object the creatures are hiding behind. You (the caster) are only seeing the bigger object. You shoot the Lighting, and it bounces. how do you choose these targets that you just can't see? I'd rule it by choosing randomly (by a dice roll of course). So this spell, while cool, has more nuances that initially thought. Of course, if you rule it that the 3 extra targets can be chosen by the caster aswell, then you would agree that the caster needs line of sight with them.
I agree. The spell doesn't explicitly state that the caster chooses the additional targets affected nor that they have to see them. The spell wording uses "target" for both the first target and every other target.
"You create a bolt of lightning that arcs toward a target of your choice that you can see within range. Three bolts then leap from that target to as many as three other targets, each of which must be within 30 feet of the first target. A target can be a creature or an object and can be targeted by only one of the bolts."
My ruling would be that the targeting by the caster for both the initial and subsequent targets is implied. The caster chooses the first target they can see and other creatures or objects (that they can also see) within 30' that they want to be affected by the spell.
Part of the problem with "randomly" selecting targets as you suggest is that the spell will target objects. Tables, chairs, a mirror on a wall, a bucket, rope, a dropped rake, spent arrows, a door, a window, a ladder, a hat sitting on the ground, a discarded pair of shoes, some rags sitting in a corner - the world is filled with far more objects than opposing creatures. Combats don't usually occur in clean rooms where there are stone walls and creatures and that is all. In addition, there could be rats, spiders, insects, and all sorts of other small creatures also within the area of effect. If the DM wants to run the spell where other "targets" are randomly selected then the huge number of possible targets in any realistic scenario means that the creatures that the caster likely wants to effect are unlikely to ever be affected.
This would be my main reason to go with the caster choosing both the initial target and the secondary ones based on what they can see since it really doesn't make much sense otherwise. In addition, it is a 6th level spell, I don't see any reason to make it less effective by forcing the secondary targets to be chosen randomly.
Casting the spell at a visible target to try to affect creatures you can't see sounds cool but I don't think it would generally work given the very large number of possible random targets that the spell could target in such a circumstance.
Yeah. I do agree its underwhelming given that there can be many objects around. Maybe the extra targets can be prioritized to be creatures by the caster's choice? Since its ambiguous, it could be ruled like that too. That can be a huge difference. I don't understand why exactly does the spell allows for objects to be targets if it isn't something like I mentioned earlier. Or for what reason would anyone want to target an object with this spell. Weird.
I agree with Grendel's interpretation here. We only have control when casting the spell at the target that we choose, which happens instantaneously. At this point, we are no longer interacting with this lightning and lightning behaves in chaotic and unpredictable ways -- including potential friendly fire.
I think that, by design, the spell is supposed to be more effective in certain environments -- such as in wide open outdoor environments. So, there is some decision making involved as to when is the best opportunity to use this spell. There was a thread recently -- I can't remember the name of the spell but it essentially created a big storm cloud overhead and lightning would shoot downwards from the cloud. It turns out that if you try to cast that in an indoor environment there is a chance that the spell just fails because there is not enough room to actually hold the cloud. I think that this is similar -- if you attempt to use this in certain indoor environments there is a much larger chance that the lightning does not behave the way that you hope it will.
I do think that it should be fair to be able to ask the DM in advance which objects you can see in the nearby area. The DM might even ask for a perception roll or something if there is some chance that you might have missed seeing some objects in the heat of the battle, but mostly the DM should give you this information -- and whether or not the chances for hitting each object is equal or weighted by size or material or whatever the DM decides. Perhaps the DM can quickly create a D100 table for what the lightning might hit and you can then make your decision. One way or another, the spell description is open ended enough that the DM is clearly meant to play a roll in determining the outcome of this spell.
I agree :) ... DM can choose to run it whichever way they prefer but they should let the player know how they will be running it. The spell doesn't state how the supplemental targets are selected so it is really a DM call as to whether they want the caster to choose, the DM chooses, the decision is made randomly, and what items/creatures/objects within the 30' constitute possible targets.
I could see myself running it one of several ways depending on the game and players but I'd let them know how it will be run in that game before it is cast for the first time.
1) Caster decides what targets it hits and is required to see them all.
2) Caster chooses first target, creature or object,
a) the spell strikes the next nearest 3 creatures of at least size small or larger.
b) the spell strikes the next nearest 3 creatures/objects
c) the spell strikes the next nearest 3 creatures that are in contact with the ground
The main problem with 2 is that there are an effectively infinite number of ways to decide the additional 3 targets.
In addition, the spell text says "up to" 3 additional targets. Does the caster decide how many additional targets? Does the DM decide based on the number of "valid" targets based on whatever algorithm they have chosen for deciding valid targets? :)
For a relatively simple spell, the procedure to choose the additional targets can become very complicated in this case ... though I completely agree that it is a valid interpretation of the spell.
Is there any reason this sspell would appear for a level two wizard in character creator? I have this exact description for a spell called Lightning Arc as a 1st level spell.
You or somebody you're in the campaign with has it in their homebrew collection. All homebrew in everybody's collections is shared, and there's no off switch. It's not ideal.