Quote from: estar;882773Except that the chain lightning spell starts off only with one target. It is my view that the limitation imposed on twinning is meant so that it did not include area effect spells like fireball. While Chain Lightning effect more than one target it is not an area effect spell. Instead it starts off targeting an individual and it gets extra attacks afterwards.

It is ambiguous and there is a case for ruling either way.

No, it's not really.  I mean the spell hits the first target then bounces up to three more.  Twinned states it must be incapable (as in not able to) target more than one creature, not at start, but at all; the spell must not be able to target more than one, ever.

By the fact that Chain Lightning seeks out up to three more during that casting, that says it's targeting more than one, hence Chain Lightning is disqualified from being Twinned.

So what do you all think about allowing it with the damage dice reduced down to a d6 or a d4?

Quote from: Omega;882870So what do you all think about allowing it with the damage dice reduced down to a d6 or a d4?

Allowing what? :confused:

Allowing Chain Lightning to be twinned if the damage were more on par with or even less than twinned Disintigrate? See my notes above for the averages and maxes.

Quote from: Omega;882875Allowing Chain Lightning to be twinned if the damage were more on par with or even less than twinned Disintigrate? See my notes above for the averages and maxes.

Are the averages spread out several targets?  Because base Chain Lightning can kill up to four 30HP or less targets in a single hit (on average), if you switch it down to d4s, you can hit up to 8, but for only 20hp or less (again, on average.)  If you must use a damage spell (Save Or Dies are still king) 7th level Fireball is still more efficient.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;882879Are the averages spread out several targets?  Because base Chain Lightning can kill up to four 30HP or less targets in a single hit (on average), if you switch it down to d4s, you can hit up to 8, but for only 20hp or less (again, on average.)  If you must use a damage spell (Save Or Dies are still king) 7th level Fireball is still more efficient.

5e Chain can tag each person only once. It acts like a somewhat limited fireball. Target someone and then it jumps to 3 other people in range. So assuming you twinned it. 4 people could each be hit twice.  Assuming there were 4 present. Theoretically you could spread it out and indeed zap up to 8 once each. Hence my thought of docking a twinned chain down to a d4. It is a-lot of potential damage. But situational.

Twinning a spell is useless if there is not a second target.

Quote from: Omega;8828925e Chain can tag each person only once. It acts like a somewhat limited fireball. Target someone and then it jumps to 3 other people in range. So assuming you twinned it. 4 people could each be hit twice.  Assuming there were 4 present. Theoretically you could spread it out and indeed zap up to 8 once each. Hence my thought of docking a twinned chain down to a d4. It is a-lot of potential damage. But situational.

Twinning a spell is useless if there is not a second target.

Hence why I think it would go for 8 targets instead of hitting the same 4 twice.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;882896Hence why I think it would go for 8 targets instead of hitting the same 4 twice.

In that case everyone would only be hit once which is average 45 (max 80) unaltered, 35(60) at a d6 and 25(40) at a d4.

My thought was based on the sorcerer twinning to catch two people standing close enough the secondary bolts could leap to the other. Even assuming they did not it seems possible some secondary targets might get zapped twice under the right circumstances?

Quote from: Omega;882899In that case everyone would only be hit once which is average 45 (max 80) unaltered, 35(60) at a d6 and 25(40) at a d4.

My thought was based on the sorcerer twinning to catch two people standing close enough the secondary bolts could leap to the other. Even assuming they did not it seems possible some secondary targets might get zapped twice under the right circumstances?

Sounds to me like a bigger math headache than necessary.  

Its more the wording of the spell. It hits one person and then leaps out to up to 3 more around that person. and those secondary bolts cant hit the same person.

So if you cast it at a pair of people two of the secondary bolts do nothing.

Now twin the spell and the secondary on both should jump to the other. Add in a 3rd person and a secondary from both initial targets should jump to the 3rd person. Hence why I was calculating damage based on a double hit.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;882868No, it's not really.  I mean the spell hits the first target then bounces up to three more.  Twinned states it must be incapable (as in not able to) target more than one creature, not at start, but at all; the spell must not be able to target more than one, ever.

Chain Lightning is not a typical multiple target spell. It starts with one target and then after that resolved branches out to other targets. I stand by what I said, a ruling either way has merit.

Quote from: estar;882944Chain Lightning is not a typical multiple target spell. It starts with one target and then after that resolved branches out to other targets. I stand by what I said, a ruling either way has merit.

That's just it, though.  IT IS.  It will seek out 3 other targets within reach.  The way it worded says that it hits target 1, and if there are any within reach, it THEN attacks up to three more.  There's no 'ifs' about it.  A target in reach?  Yes?  Then hits.  That's a multitarget spell, hence by my reading disqualified.

Quote from: estar;882944Chain Lightning is not a typical multiple target spell. It starts with one target and then after that resolved branches out to other targets. I stand by what I said, a ruling either way has merit.

It's unbelievable that anyone would insist that a spell that explicitly says "targets", plural, only has one target. By the same reasoning, Fireball doesn't target any creature; it targets a point, and it just so happens that creatures near that point take damage. :rolleyes:

In particular, if you have exactly four creatures close enough that they are the only possible targets of Chain Lightning, then allowing it to be twinned would mean each of the four would get hit twice by it if the initial target were two different creatures among the four. The point of twinning is to hit two different creatures with the same spell, not to double it up on one creature, let alone double it up on four different creatures. Unless someone wants to argue that "target a second creature" includes targeting the same creature again.

Quote from: rawma;882970It's unbelievable that anyone would insist that a spell that explicitly says "targets", plural, only has one target.

uh. No it doesnt. It says "archs towards a target of your choice." Singular.

Therein lies the problem.

A fireball hits everything in the blast all at once. A regular lightning bolt travels on through in a line. (and has range self so is automatically disqualified.) Not sure but Chain Lightning may be the only Sorcerer spell in the book with this odd setup that isnt specifically locked down by its own wording. maybe they forgot the "range: self" flag?

Quote from: Omega;882994uh. No it doesnt. It says "archs towards a target of your choice." Singular.

Therein lies the problem.

A fireball hits everything in the blast all at once. A regular lightning bolt travels on through in a line. (and has range self so is automatically disqualified.) Not sure but Chain Lightning may be the only Sorcerer spell in the book with this odd setup that isnt specifically locked down by its own wording. maybe they forgot the "range: self" flag?

But the issue is that if there are multiple targets within reach it automatically goes for them.  That's the thing.  The wording of Twinned Spell says 'Single target ONLY'.  Which means that because even though Chain Lightning can target a single foe, the fact that it automatically targets and hits up to three more on top of the first takes it out of the running.