andreww |
I have found a significant number of GMs that rule dazing is a mind-effecting condition - and so dazing doesn't work on a lot of critters on many tables.
I wonder what such GM's do about the Anyklosaurus. Its on the SMV list and is one of the best summons of its level so I normally expect to see them with any character interested in summoning from level 9 onwards.
Zhangar |
Dhjika wrote:I have found a significant number of GMs that rule dazing is a mind-effecting condition - and so dazing doesn't work on a lot of critters on many tables.I wonder what such GM's do about the Anyklosaurus. Its on the SMV list and is one of the best summons of its level so I normally expect to see them with any character interested in summoning from level 9 onwards.
It's a fort save that upgrades to a stun on a critical. I'd say a creature immune to stun in the first place would be immune to the daze as well.
If you haste the thing it has a chance to shut down two enemies for one round per round. It's pretty nice, but it's situational.
Tom Sampson |
Dazing Spell is banned in my group.
It's positively stupid how it converts any damaging spell into a Save or Lose effect, even if I were burning 6th level slots on it, casting a Dazing Pellet Blast would be extremely worth it.
When you have Dazing Spell, you look at damage spells less like "which of these does better damage" and more like "which of these spells will affect their lowest saving throw and bypass spell resistance if necessary." The damage itself becomes largely irrelevant.
wraithstrike |
the secret fire wrote:Another simple solution is to rule that FoM negates daze and stun.Zhangar wrote:Do you think making the dazing component both (a) explicitly a mind-affecting condition and (b) requiring that a separate will save be failed would make a sufficient difference?This would drastically reduce its potency at higher levels, to the point that it would be largely worthless past about 11th-12th level against everything except for big dumbs like dinosaurs.
The real reason dazing spell cannot really be balanced is because the devs seem to have completely overlooked the dazed condition when building their bestiaries.
I think the spell is to close to Freedom(its big brother spell) already. It does not need anymore help.
Undone |
There seems to be a general opinion on this board that defeating opponents by any methods other than hit point attrition is overpowered and must be prevented at all costs.
I disagree. You're free to beat enemies in anyway you desire the problem is that there needs to be some form of counter. Dazing has none unless you let FOM work.
Orfamay Quest |
Orfamay Quest wrote:There seems to be a general opinion on this board that defeating opponents by any methods other than hit point attrition is overpowered and must be prevented at all costs.I disagree. You're free to beat enemies in anyway you desire the problem is that there needs to be some form of counter. Dazing has none unless you let FOM work.
Did I miss the part of the Dazing Spell metamagic that deprives opponents of their saving throw? Otherwise, I think there's an error in your copy of the book.
andreww |
There seems to be a general opinion on this board that defeating opponents by any methods other than hit point attrition is overpowered and must be prevented at all costs.
Not really.
Mostly it is because dazing can be attached to spells targeting any save which means you dramatically increase the chances of success, way beyond what you might otherwise expect.
It is also one of the most debilitating conditions in the game because it directly affects the action economy. It is significantly better than stun as whole swathes of enemies (undead, oozes, plants, elementals, constructs) are not immune to it.
It can also be attached to spells which do not allow SR or which persist over multiple rounds or can be moved vastly increasing their power. Dazing Aqueous Orb is utterly lethal to huge swathes of the battlefield, dazing Wall of Fire spells death to anyone caught in it who doesn't have high levels of fire resistance and a single feat can get around that issue.
voideternal |
I think both metamagic Dazing, Ankylosaurus, and Dazing Critical are all mechanically strong. I've seen the first two in action in games where I GM and where I'm a player. I've used Ankylosauruses against my PCs. From my experience, whichever side uses Dazing effects tends to have an upper hand / ends the encounter.
From that, in my home games, I've houseruled that stun-immune creatures are daze-immune as well. Yes, Dazing metamagic is annoying to me, both when I GM and when I play.
Orfamay Quest |
I think both metamagic Dazing, Ankylosaurus, and Dazing Critical are all mechanically strong. From my experience, whichever side uses Dazing effects tends to have an upper hand / ends the encounter.
And we all know that the only acceptable way to end an encounter is through hit point attrition.
Thanks for so eloquently proving my point, everyone.
Nicos |
There seems to be a general opinion on this board that defeating opponents by any methods other than hit point attrition is overpowered and must be prevented at all costs.
SInce hte game is filled with other things beside doing damage, and several of those are just stronger and commonly used and acknowledged, I have to say that I have no Idea what you are talking about.
Lucy_Valentine |
There seems to be a general opinion on this board that defeating opponents by any methods other than hit point attrition is overpowered and must be prevented at all costs.
Or we could say that defeating opponents should involve a variety of methods to be interesting, and that if "pick spell and add dazing" is too effective, it ceases to be fun because it's the only method you need.
I mean, there are a variety of ways to look at this complaint.
voideternal |
And we all know that the only acceptable way to end an encounter is through hit point attrition.
Thanks for so eloquently proving my point, everyone.
I think it's fine for encounters to end through control spells. But in one game I'm currently in, I think the last five or six sessions all had combats that started and ended with metamagic dazing fireball by the evoker wizard. I'm playing a fighter in that game, and though it's amusing to watch the wizard do amazing things, I do sometimes feel bored.*
In another game I'm GMing, the Conjurer wizard *sometimes* summons Ankylosaurus(es). Most encounters, everyone does stuff, including the Conjurer. Everyone has fun.
Whether an encounter ends through HP or Save or Suck, I'm rather impartial. Just, if it always skews to one side, some players might miss the spotlight.
But from what I noticed from my experience, a lot of creatures and encounters can take a full attack by a dedicated archer, letting other party members do cool stuff. However, if a wizard targets an encounter with an AoE save or die (or daze for 3 rounds), then it's really only the wizard always doing things. And it can take away fun from the game for some players.
* To be fair, in the game with the evoker, the PCs and my fighter are past level 15, and I'm of the opinion that game balance is weaker around these levels, so I kind of just accept it.
Bob Bob Bob |
The problem with daze is just that there is no standard immunity to it, so too many things that have "no action denial" built in like undead and constructs (no stun or nauseated) don't have daze immunity. The problem with dazing spell is less fireball and more hungry pit/flaming sphere/ball lightning. Ball lightning is a personal favorite (pick and choose who loses their actions, now with flying and reflex saves), but any spell that sticks around and forces multiple saves has the potential to utterly shut down pretty much anything. This starts with first level spells with snapdragon fireworks (targets a square, not a person, so they always have to make a reflex save). Also, as always, conjuration and SR:No just makes this problem worse.
anlashok |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There seems to be a general opinion on this board that defeating opponents by any methods other than hit point attrition is overpowered and must be prevented at all costs.
I love these absurd and intentionally duplicitous logical leaps people like to make here. Somehow "I think this metamagic is too strong" turns into "anything other than damage is cheating". Come off it.
Seriously. You accomplish absolutely nothing by trying to mock people like that.
BlackOuroboros |
Orfamay Quest wrote:There seems to be a general opinion on this board that defeating opponents by any methods other than hit point attrition is overpowered and must be prevented at all costs.I love these absurd and intentionally duplicitous logical leaps people like to make here. Somehow "I think this metamagic is too strong" turns into "anything other than damage is cheating". Come off it.
Seriously. You accomplish absolutely nothing by trying to mock people like that.
Honestly, I think he finds it amusing. Lord knows, I find it pretty funny myself.
Diego Rossi |
the secret fire wrote:Another simple solution is to rule that FoM negates daze and stun.Zhangar wrote:Do you think making the dazing component both (a) explicitly a mind-affecting condition and (b) requiring that a separate will save be failed would make a sufficient difference?This would drastically reduce its potency at higher levels, to the point that it would be largely worthless past about 11th-12th level against everything except for big dumbs like dinosaurs.
The real reason dazing spell cannot really be balanced is because the devs seem to have completely overlooked the dazed condition when building their bestiaries.
FoM? You mean freedom of movement?
It would open a different can of work, as those aren't conditions impeding movements.
Diego Rossi |
Zhangar wrote:I think always having it last for 1 round, regardless of spell level, would be a nice start.andreww wrote:Dhjika wrote:I have found a significant number of GMs that rule dazing is a mind-effecting condition - and so dazing doesn't work on a lot of critters on many tables.That might make for an interesting houserule but it still leaves who swathes of foes who are horribly vulnerable to it. Dragons, Giants and many other creatures tend to have a single terrible save which is very easily exploited by the ability to add dazing to any spell that deals damage regardless of save type.Do you think making the dazing component both (a) explicitly a mind-affecting condition and (b) requiring that a separate will save be failed would make a sufficient difference?
(I am familiar with your test with the sorcerer who soloed the Ruby Phoenix Tournament mostly through Dazing spell immediately winning every fight)
Dazing cantrips lasting at least 1 round don't seem a good idea. It should be spell level or 1 round, whichever is less.
There are too many creatures with horrible Will saves to give a 1 round duration to dazing cantrips.Laiho Vanallo |
Hey don't worry, you should have seen my GM face when I bought a lesser rod of rime spell for 3000 GP and started to use admixture to make rime iceballs.
I had saved all my money for level 5 to be able to buy that little toy of pleasure. With my Varisian tattoo:evocation and my spell specialization: fireball with spell focus and greater spell focus evocation, I can say that sending huge wave of enemies at me was a bad idea. 8d6 DC 19 for half damage and not being entangled is very brutal at that level.
voska66 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never seen anyone go out buy a rod of metamagic dazing. The lesser rod is 14,000 and applies to 1-3 level spells which mean the save DC won't be that high for CR 11-13 encounters as you will be level 10 by the time you can afford this rod. So unless the GM tosses this to you early it's won't be available. As well it's major rod so finding one will be difficult at best and impossible if the GM doesn't want you to have it. By the time you can get this there will be better ways to shut down encounters.
This rod in the hands of level 5 wizard though is very powerful. Just a level 5 wizard shouldn't have an item like this.
deusvult |
Dazing Spell has the same "cure" as the Sleep Hex:
A d20 rolled behind the GM screen whos result is ignored and counted as a "nat 20" instead.
Dazing spells only work when the GM lets it. If you think it's getting out of hand at your table, just have the monsters begin to save against it more often.
Ravingdork |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dazing Spell has the same "cure" as the Sleep Hex:
A d20 rolled behind the GM screen whos result is ignored and counted as a "nat 20" instead.
Dazing spells only work when the GM lets it. If you think it's getting out of hand at your table, just have the monsters begin to save against it more often.
That's terrible advice! Better to ban it in the first place, explaining the logical reasons for doing so, than to cheat and lie to your players in a game largely based on fun and trust.
deusvult |
Fudging dice can easily be misused*, but it's a legitimate strategy in the GM toolkit. If you don't like it, don't use it. But it's still there.
*= in this case, overuse is the easiest way to misuse. Like so many fine spices, less is more.
But in a longer term view, Ravingdork has a point. if you rely solely on fudging dice to address something you don't like, you're just going to encourage the user of that thing you don't like to double down and increase the DCs. He is right that communication is still a very good idea.
In the micro view however, if a dazing spell is going to ruin an encounter, then by all means don't let it. Unless you're trying to be a killer Gm the monster is supposed to lose anyway, so if someone is butthurt over the fight lasting 2 rounds instead of one, they're the ones who need an attitude adjustment, not the GM.
Laiho Vanallo |
Dazing Spell has the same "cure" as the Sleep Hex:
A d20 rolled behind the GM screen whos result is ignored and counted as a "nat 20" instead.
Dazing spells only work when the GM lets it. If you think it's getting out of hand at your table, just have the monsters begin to save against it more often.
If your story all hang out in the hands of a dazing spell save and that you need to cheat on your players to make it work, reevaluate your story and what you define as fun. As a game master I always have a blast when my players get lucky and destroy an encounter I designed in 2-3 rounds. Who care if the big bad villain got is head cut off by a vorpal sword! Who cares if a player took the time to master the system to make a good character! I had a player that played a rogue out of spite of the because of the boards, he took 5 rounds to sneak up behind the big bad boss and attacked him with his spell storing eleven curved blade with a rime, intensified, cold modified shocking grasp for "10d6 + 6d6 + 1d10 + 3 DMG" what will you do as a DM then? Tell him no your plan does not work even if you rolled well over 40 with every one of your stealth rolls while the bard was distracting the bad guy? That is outright unfair to the players!
What if the bad guy misses his concentration check on a spell, or roll a 1 while trying to gather information on the adventurers getting to his lair! I had an arch-villain totally suspect a party of powerful spell caster heading his way because he did not manage to acquire enough good information on them! His spell selection for that day was mostly aimed at low fort/reflex saves casters and not a party of barbarian, rogues and rangers.
Marcus Robert Hosler |
deusvult wrote:That's terrible advice! Better to ban it in the first place, explaining the logical reasons for doing so, than to cheat and lie to your players in a game largely based on fun and trust.Dazing Spell has the same "cure" as the Sleep Hex:
A d20 rolled behind the GM screen whos result is ignored and counted as a "nat 20" instead.
Dazing spells only work when the GM lets it. If you think it's getting out of hand at your table, just have the monsters begin to save against it more often.
Agreed. You might as well not even have the PCs or the dice there. You can just shout at the pages of an AP and get roughly the same experience.
DrDeth |
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Orfamay Quest wrote:There seems to be a general opinion on this board that defeating opponents by any methods other than hit point attrition is overpowered and must be prevented at all costs.Not really.
Mostly it is because dazing can be attached to spells targeting any save which means you dramatically increase the chances of success, way beyond what you might otherwise expect.
It is also one of the most debilitating conditions in the game because it directly affects the action economy. It is significantly better than stun as whole swathes of enemies (undead, oozes, plants, elementals, constructs) are not immune to it.
Sure they are. Look up the spell " enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]" .
A Paladins Mercy can remove Dazed. Heal removes it. A number of other things
andreww |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
anlashok wrote:Doesnt need to. Just use common sense.DrDeth wrote:We're talking about a piece of metamagic. Which has none of those descriptors tied to it.
Sure they are. Look up the spell " enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]"
I guess the ankylosaurus must be really surprised that its tail attack is mind affecting.
Or the Selkie and its shake attack.
Or martial characters with dazing assault or twin thunders master or mythic gorgon's fist or mythic spirited charge feats.
Or alternate channel Rulership clerics channelling to harm.
Or people casting Order's Wrath or Arrow of Law or Blasphemy or Ear Piercing Scream.
Or Exorcist Inquisitors using Verdict of Exile or Exorcism.
And those are just from a 5 minute skim of the results of searching for the word Daze in the PRD.
I guess common sense is neither common nor does it often make much sense.
andreww |
So, I guess you guys don't see a lot of rod-sundering in your games.
To sunder you have to be next to the caster and capable of effectively targeting them. By the time I see many rods coming into play that has become exceptionally difficult to achieve if the caster player is even vaguely competent.
andreww |
andreww wrote:DrDeth wrote:A Paladins Mercy can remove Dazed. Heal removes it. A number of other thingsJust how many high level paladins or clerics do your monsters normally bring along with them exactly?Exactly as many as Rods of Dazing.
;-)
So including dazing forces you to abandon all pretence at verisimilitude and distort your campaign around it.
Sounds like a prime candidate for beating with the nerf bat. Certainly far more so than something like Crane Wing.
deusvult |
deusvult wrote:Fudging dice can easily be misused*, but it's a legitimate strategy in the GM toolkit. If you don't like it, don't use it. But it's still there.Great. Tell your players before the campaign starts so they have the chance to flip you the bird and walk out.
Why should one have to? It's right there on page 402-403 of the CRB. Players may not fudge dice, but the GM gets to do it whenever he feels like it.* If I don't tell you I'm NOT using that rule, then why get upset?
*= subject to the GM's own sense of telling a good story/furthering fun for the entire table. It might be one player's idea of a good time to find what breaks encounters and defeating monsters at no risk to his or her character. And it's not right for the GM to aribitrarily short-cut that player's idea of fun "Just Because". But, OTOH, it likely isn't everyone else's idea of fun to watch that first player do it so that their characters are routinely rendered moot.
Marcus Robert Hosler |
blahpers wrote:deusvult wrote:Fudging dice can easily be misused*, but it's a legitimate strategy in the GM toolkit. If you don't like it, don't use it. But it's still there.Great. Tell your players before the campaign starts so they have the chance to flip you the bird and walk out.Why should one have to? It's right there on page 402-403 of the CRB. Players may not fudge dice, but the GM gets to do it whenever he feels like it.* If I don't tell you I'm NOT using that rule, then why get upset?
*= subject to the GM's own sense of telling a good story/furthering fun for the entire table. It might be one player's idea of a good time to find what breaks encounters and defeating monsters at no risk to his or her character. And it's not right for the GM to aribitrarily short-cut that player's idea of fun "Just Because". But, OTOH, it likely isn't everyone else's idea of fun to watch that first player do it so that their characters are routinely rendered moot.
If you know how everything is going to play out, then why are the players there?
deusvult |
If you know how everything is going to play out, then why are the players there?
Of course the GM knows going in that the players are going to win. But if one player's character consistently steals the spotlight at the expense of the other players, that's what we GMs like to call "A Problem." And fudging dice to allow someone else to beat the monster for a change is something that I'm surprised that people are having difficulty seeing the advantage in.
andreww |
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:Of course the GM knows going in that the players are going to win. But if one player's character consistently steals the spotlight at the expense of the other players, that's what we GMs like to call "A Problem." And fudging dice to allow someone else to beat the monster for a change is something that I'm surprised that people are having difficulty seeing the advantage in.
If you know how everything is going to play out, then why are the players there?
You don't solve out of game problems with mechanics, you sit down as a sensible group of friends and discuss what is happening, whether it is a problem and if so what you as a group want to do about it.
That might mean one player scaling things back a bit, the GM changing the sorts of challenges to better engage the others or the other players stepping up a bit.
Fudging stuff behind the screen rarely actually deals with the underlying issues in my experience.
Teatime42 |
deusvult wrote:Fudging dice can easily be misused*, but it's a legitimate strategy in the GM toolkit. If you don't like it, don't use it. But it's still there.Great. Tell your players before the campaign starts so they have the chance to flip you the bird and walk out.
Well, that was insulting and hostile.
deusvult |
deusvult wrote:Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:Of course the GM knows going in that the players are going to win. But if one player's character consistently steals the spotlight at the expense of the other players, that's what we GMs like to call "A Problem." And fudging dice to allow someone else to beat the monster for a change is something that I'm surprised that people are having difficulty seeing the advantage in.
If you know how everything is going to play out, then why are the players there?You don't solve out of game problems with mechanics, you sit down as a sensible group of friends and discuss what is happening, whether it is a problem and if so what you as a group want to do about it.
That might mean one player scaling things back a bit, the GM changing the sorts of challenges to better engage the others or the other players stepping up a bit.
Fudging stuff behind the screen rarely actually deals with the underlying issues in my experience.
As I acknowledged earlier, yes the healthiest option for a regular group is to just make 'gentlemen's agreements' to reign in use of disruptive abilities (whatever they may be for your group). Another option is to just houserule them away.
Sometimes however, those aren't options. Perhaps you're running PFS where you have neither a consistent group of individuals nor the authority to ban/houserule disruptive abilities. In cases like that, you got good old page 402. (or 403? don't have a CRB with me atm)
Marcus Robert Hosler |
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:If you know how everything is going to play out, then why are the players there?Of course the GM knows going in that the players are going to win. But if one player's character consistently steals the spotlight at the expense of the other players, that's what we GMs like to call "A Problem." And fudging dice to allow someone else to beat the monster for a change is something that I'm surprised that people are having difficulty seeing the advantage in.
There are nigh-infinite ways to address imbalance problems. Dice-fudging has to be both the worst and laziest approach.
One of which is just straight up banning the mechanic instead of deluding the players into thinking their actions have any efficacy.