|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hi. I've just finished playing a session(PFS) where the GM was claming undead are immune to the daze condition, and thus cannot be dazed by the use of the dazing spell metamagic (ie. on dazing fireball, dazing burning gaze, dazing magic missiles), or the use of dazing assault.
Since Constructs share the same traits with undead with regards to that question - does that mean they are also immune to the dazing spell metamagic feat/dazing assault as well?
Is this correct? Where is a reference that I can refer to in the future?
|
Your GM was mistaken. Dazing Spell and Dazing Assault (by RAW) work against undead and constructs.
You can find the description of creature types in the back of the bestiary. Undead and Constructs aren't immune to the Dazed condition; in fact only Behemoths are.
What probably had your DM confused, is that undead and constructs are immune to mind-affecting abilities, and most things that cause the Dazed condition are mind-affecting. However, Dazing Spell and Dazing Assault make no mention of being mind-affecting abilities, so immunity to mind-affecting abilities don't help against those.
Your GM was mistaken. Dazing Spell and Dazing Assault (by RAW) work against undead and constructs.
You can find the description of creature types in the back of the bestiary. Undead and Constructs aren't immune to the Dazed condition; in fact only Behemoths are.
What probably had your DM confused, is that undead and constructs are immune to mind-affecting abilities, and most things that cause the Dazed condition are mind-affecting. However, Dazing Spell and Dazing Assault make no mention of being mind-affecting abilities, so immunity to mind-affecting abilities don't help against those.
So there's actually one way that undead might be immune to Dazing Assault--they are immune to all fortitude saves that don't affect objects. They definitely aren't immune to Dazing Spell with a Reflex or Will save though.
Rogue Eidolon is correct. And daze is NOT a "lesser version of stun." The rules say this nowhere, and there is not a single ability I know of to take a dazed creature to stunned. They have their own unique quirks. In general, dazed is less debilitating than stun, but in turn is less commonly resisted. So your DM was basically robbing you of the advantage of using daze condition in the first place.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
For spell selection, I was VERY careful. Magic missiles and Snapdragon fireworks target will and reflex specifically, as for Burning gaze:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/burning-gaze
Your eyes burn like hot coals, allowing you to set objects or foes alight with a glance.
As a standard action as long as this spell's effects persist, you may direct your burning gaze against a single creature or object within 30 feet of your location. Targeted creatures must succeed at a Fortitude save or take 1d6 points of fire damage. Unattended objects do not get a save. Creatures damaged by the spell must make a Reflex save or catch fire.
It specifically did state objects.
Thanks alot to everyone for the help, next time there is any confusion with my Lesser Rod of Dazing, I'll refer them all to this thread.
*tucks this scroll into handy haversack*
|
|
And it happened again. Table variance is getting on me. A dazing spell has a +3 level adjustment, and a lesser metamagic rod of it costs like 13k. If daze really is a lesser version of stun, and thus monsters immune to stun are immune to daze, which makes this form of control unsuitable for undead, plants and constructs, perhaps a revisit of the pricing should be in order?
(I do have other spells, but stuff like create pit usually doesn't make the party very happy as there are problems in getting to the victims in question).
The GM is free to change the rules, but he'd do we'll to allow you to retrain your feat and/or spell selection if he didn't state his house rule up front. Otherwise, kind of a jerk move.
|
@Just a Mort,
No creature is immune to daze. Undead can be dazed. Swarms can be dazed. Constructs can be dazed. The list goes on.
The only real problem is when creatures defenses ignore specific type of spells; such as undead immune to any spell that requires a Fort save and doesn't work on objects, constructs being immune to magic, spell resistance, resistance to energy if spell is damage based (such as dazing fireball), etc.
Daze also has no connection at all with stun condition.
Make sure those GM's are following the rules, unless they are houseruling. In that case, you can politely ask the money refound or talk it out with your GM.
Malag
The GM is free to change the rules, but he'd do we'll to allow you to retrain your feat and/or spell selection if he didn't state his house rule up front. Otherwise, kind of a jerk move.Not in pfs he isnt.
Fair enough, but that's a PFS rule, not a Pathfinder rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are no PF rules, there are just rules individual groups make up and/or use.Fair enough, but that's a PFS rule, not a Pathfinder rule.The GM is free to change the rules, but he'd do we'll to allow you to retrain your feat and/or spell selection if he didn't state his house rule up front. Otherwise, kind of a jerk move.Not in pfs he isnt.
If that were the case, we might as well close this forum.
Undead can be dazed.
Fair enough, but they can still get fascinated even being immune to it.
And even creatures without eyes can be affected by Dazzled effect, which makes absolutely no sense.The conditions rules are a mess.
To be honest, Dazed is one of those status that you should avoid spamming, lest you want your GM trying to kill you really soon.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It also lists sickened and nauseated as separate conditions, which they are, but there are several situations where one can often deteriorate into the other (fail a second save vs sickened, become nauseated).
There's also fatigue and exhaustion, where two applications of the former condition can often inflict the latter.
I think it's totally understandable why a GM would thing that dazed is a lesser form of stunned.
Both words have a similar meaning, in the English language, and are used interchangably by non-gamers.
The game effects of both are also similar in nature, but alter in strength.
It is an intuitive conclusion to make, and doesn't imply the GM has it in for his players.
If they are unrelated conditions, then any conversation to rectify a ruling should be made politely and diplomatically, giving the GM the benefit of the doubt, that an honest mistake was made.
Have you talked to the DM about your concern? It could be that he knows the right ruling and just uses his own because he feels daze is overpowered (frankly this could be true). If he simply doesn't want you to be able to daze, ask for a replacement item that is more effective.