is Dazing metamagic as annoying for anyone else?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 145 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

$subject

as a GM or Player, is Dazing metamagic as annoying for anyone else? it seems like any time the players can pull out a metamagic Dazing rod, spin up their DC real high, and daze creatures for 3 rounds, the game just shuts down.

that's nice and all. But if any module did that to the players, they'd scream bloody murder. meanwhile they can do it at least 3x per session if that's the type of character build it is.

did the designers not see a balance flaw in this??


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Save or suck do indeed suck when you fail the save. If that spoils your fun as a GM maybe don’t approach it from a ‘me vs players’ angle. When players destroy the creatures I’m GMing I cheer for them!


Dazing metamagic is good, yes. It's a save-or-suck, which have always been good since pre 3.5. There's a lot of other, very easy ways for full casters to shut down encounters this way. It's not really news.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Countless people find counltess things annoying.

They also often oppose eachother

You build too strong of characters, you build too weak.

This is a social game with social aspects. Building a rulership channeling cleric and dazing every monster every fight does not bode well for being a social game.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll have done PFS for two years next month. I've GMed exactly 150 games, have been to Conventions all across the West Coast, and have 5 retired characters.

I've never seen anyone waste gold on a Dazing Metamagic Rod.

Grand Lodge

Well, as a feat, you are casting a 4th level spell, but doing first level damage. That is a pretty big trade off. (admittedly, if you pick your spell right, you get a lot of dazes, but is it really worse than an intensified fireball at high levels?

As a rod, it costs 14000, and lets you turn three 3rd level spell slots into 6th level spell slots. The likelyhood of having two of those is not great.

The other thing is that beyond a certain point, creatures good saves seem to go up faster than DCs. Which is great for the players when your spell targets the creatures bad save, but I have also seen safe or suck casters sit their uselessly pinging save or sucks off a big bad who had to roll a 4 or less to be affected, because they didn't have anything else they could do.

Grand Lodge

Nefreet wrote:

I'll have done PFS for two years next month. I've GMed exactly 150 games, have been to Conventions all across the West Coast, and have 5 retired characters.

I've never seen anyone waste gold on a Dazing Metamagic Rod.

Nefreet, I am thinking about one for my evoker bloat mage. What else is he going to spend money on? (Well, I will buy the blessed book first, actually.)

Shadow Lodge

Nefreet wrote:

I'll have done PFS for two years next month. I've GMed exactly 150 games, have been to Conventions all across the West Coast, and have 5 retired characters.

I've never seen anyone waste gold on a Dazing Metamagic Rod.

I've seen it several times.

Dazing Assault at L11+ is also popular as a hasted melee can hit a single target 4 times and force a DC 21+ FORT each time (or spread the love around to other targets in reach once the first foe is dazed). The DC doesn't have to spectacular if you force a creature to roll multiple times in a round.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to chalk this complaint up as being a regional one, at best.

Count up all the PFS characters in existence.
Take away the frontline strikers (the majority of PFSers), the ranged martials, the healers, the skill monkeys, and the "fun" builds.
Now you're left with Arcane Casters.
Take away the spontaneous casters, the non-blasters, and the non-minmaxers.

Now you're left with a very, very small selection of Wizards (basically) with maxed out Intelligence, that have heavily focused on Evocation, and have spent their money on this Rod before other regular purchases.

I can't see that as any more a problem, or an annoyance, than an optimized Zen Archer, a pouncing Barbarian, or a Dual-Cursed Oracle.

This is just another one of those threads complaining about a build the poster doesn't like. We have enough of those elsewhere in the forums. I don't think we need another one here.

The Dazing build is a one-trick pony, just like the others. Any one-trick pony is annoying. But they have their weaknesses that should not be discounted. Usually it's doing anything that doesn't involve blasting. Try taking them through a dinner party or a wedding, or just trying to capture somebody alive. Their metamagic rod won't be able to help them much there.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vincent Colon-Roine wrote:

$subject

as a GM or Player, is Dazing metamagic as annoying for anyone else? it seems like any time the players can pull out a metamagic Dazing rod, spin up their DC real high, and daze creatures for 3 rounds, the game just shuts down.

that's nice and all. But if any module did that to the players, they'd scream bloody murder. meanwhile they can do it at least 3x per session if that's the type of character build it is.

did the designers not see a balance flaw in this??

The issue here is not the metamagic - which requires +3 spell level adjustment, but the metamagic rod that allows anyone to apply it

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

its not so much the build that bugs me, as the daze for more than one round.
at low levels, daze is a great spell. take a guy out for one action. at higher levels, losing an action can either give a breather for a group having a bad round, or decimate the enemy since most BBEG fights are vs. one guy. Losing actions for 3 rounds on one bad save is game over.
Certain things that were save or suck got fixes in pathfinder ( hold person, hideous laughter ), but then the rules creep happened again after the APG was released and i'm just pointing it out.

the same goes for the swashbuckler w/ the cape, the cleric with the alternate channelling rules, the blasty wizard/sorcerer. save or suck or no save dazes for multiple rounds bug me.

its not that i care so much that its a me vs the players thing, its that the fight gets neutered before it starts usually. I've been on both sides, as a player its no fun because you don't get to participate in the combat, you don't get to do your own thing. You might be buffing, or blasting another bad guy, but once that area of effect 3 round daze comes out... you just get to sit back and move on to whatever's next.

ruby phoenix tournament? dazing fireball on the sea dragon. failed its save. combat over.
throw a witch in against the one opponent? two or four chances to daze and end combat.
then its just no threat, i like a fun combat with some give and take on both sides, so there's some danger, not just a cake walk if its not a construct.

i've discovered in a combat that yes, oozes while immune to stun, say nothing about daze. so yes, you can daze an ooze.

its not regional, i've seen it indepenently in NY , TX, and in europe. If you've escaped it by running 150 games across the country at conventions, you got lucky.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
The Dazing build is a one-trick pony, just like the others. Any one-trick pony is annoying. But they have their weaknesses that should not be discounted. Usually it's doing anything that doesn't involve blasting. Try taking them through a dinner party or a wedding, or just trying to capture somebody alive. Their metamagic rod won't be able to help them much there.

You can build a highly effective dazing build with very little investment. It doesn't preclude you from being a skill monkey, not to mention a full caster with a lot of other tricks.


Dhjika wrote:
The issue here is not the metamagic - which requires +3 spell level adjustment, but the metamagic rod that allows anyone to apply it

The metamagic is also a problem, or more accurately the metamagic cost reduction traits are a problem.


El_Jefe wrote:
Dhjika wrote:
The issue here is not the metamagic - which requires +3 spell level adjustment, but the metamagic rod that allows anyone to apply it
The metamagic is also a problem, or more accurately the metamagic cost reduction traits are a problem.

Perhaps, but I concur that the rods are way more problematic. I would prefer the trait for selective metamagic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

Now you're left with Arcane Casters.

Take away the spontaneous casters, the non-blasters, and the non-minmaxers.

I am not sure why you would take out the spontaneous casters, they can all use the metamagoc rod and the feat itself is extremely powerful at 10-11, earlier if you use traits. You can be dropping dazing fireball/aqueous orb as early as level 7 with the right traits.

You also need to include divine casters, it is an excellent way to add control to a range of Oracles, Clerics or Druids.

Dazing is also not limited to Evocation spells. There are a range of conjuration, transmutation and necromantic spells which deal damage and which can target a range of different saves.

Really the strength of Dazing Spell is the ability to attack it to any of the three saves vastly increasing your chances of getting it to land and the fact that you can attach it to various conjurations which ignore SR.

Dazing Aqueous Orb is hilariously powerful, Dazing Acid Arrow will pretty much entirely shut down any Golem you will ever encounter(although so will acid pit generally), Dazing Ice Spears is pinpoint accurate control against multiple opponents.


Nefreet wrote:
The Dazing build is a one-trick pony, just like the others. Any one-trick pony is annoying. But they have their weaknesses that should not be discounted. Usually it's doing anything that doesn't involve blasting. Try taking them through a dinner party or a wedding, or just trying to capture somebody alive. Their metamagic rod won't be able to help them much there.

Nothing about doing this requires you to be a one trick pony, it requires you to take Dazing Spell or buy a Rod and then feats you were likely to take anyway, Spell Focus and/or Spell Penetration probably. None of those discount from your ability to participate on the skill side of the game and as we are talking about full casters you also have an enormous range of spells to help out with that.

Describing this as a one trick pony is inaccurate and bizarre.


The dazing metamagic's never come up in my games, but as a GM I'd be reluctant to use it against my players because it's too good.

The metamagic as written lets you apply the daze condition to damn near anything - constructs, oozes, undead, great old ones, etc.

IIRC, spells that normally inflict the dazed condition are flagged as mind-affecting and/or compulsion. A dazing fireball/aqueous orb/whatever doesn't have those flags, and so it works on stuff where daze working is just sort of dumb. It probably doesn't help that hardly anything in the game is explicitly immune to being dazed.

The metamagic feat could probably be fixed with some tweaking (like making the daze rider a separate will save that's explicitly a mind-affecting compulsion effect). But by RAW it can easily become a problem.


Dazing Metamagic Rod? Ahahahaha.

No.

You want a Staff of the Master (Necromancy).

Your Welcome.

(Also andreww already covered in detail why Dazing Spell is not a one-trick pony so no need for me to reiterate.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I usually make my own staff of the master since the description clearly states that there are others. Did you notice that the sample staff uses a 1st-, 2nd-, and 3rd-level spell? I like to think that, that is true for all of them, regardless of school. Just switch those out for spells of equivalent level from a different school and you're done. It's very simple and balanced (compared to the original anyways); don't need to change the price or anything.

My character, Sela Kurn, possesses a staff of the master for the abjuration school (abjuration; protection from evil [1 charge], protection from arrows [1 charge], protection from energy [2 charges], CL 8th; doubles as a +1/+1 quarterstaff).


Having recently completed 2 AP's dazing is frankly awesome in the upper levels of games

it is powerful because next to nothing is immune to daze, so those 6 advanced spectres....boom dazed

in a game like PF where combat last so few rounds, the baddies losing any of those rounds is powerful for the pcs indeed


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I have a player in my group who has Dazing Spell. In nearly every battle enemies are almost always completely unable to respond to their attackers. Why?

Because in every battle A DIFFERENT CASTER in the party casts STINKING CLOUD.

Dazing spell is perfectly fine when compared to existing effects.


Most existing effects, like stinking cloud, have long lists of critters they don't work on.

Dazing spell works on practically everything.

(Also, you must be fighting in pretty specific circumstances if stinking cloud is actually winning every fight for you.)


Ravingdork wrote:

I have a player in my group who has Dazing Spell. In nearly every battle enemies are almost always completely unable to respond to their attackers. Why?

Because in every battle A DIFFERENT CASTER in the party casts STINKING CLOUD.

Dazing spell is perfectly fine when compared to existing effects.

Way more things are immune to stiking clouds than to daze effect. And big monster have better Fort save than ref save.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the players know that the NPC's can do anything they do sometimes a reminder is all they need. If that does not work then actually do it.

I do think that for a more casual group it can be annoying, and/or if the GM does not have a lot of time to customize encounters. In both of these cases it may be better to not allow it.


It's on my shortlist of banned effects, yeah.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nicos wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

I have a player in my group who has Dazing Spell. In nearly every battle enemies are almost always completely unable to respond to their attackers. Why?

Because in every battle A DIFFERENT CASTER in the party casts STINKING CLOUD.

Dazing spell is perfectly fine when compared to existing effects.

Way more things are immune to stiking clouds than to daze effect. And big monster have better Fort save than ref save.

Big monsters with big saves make little difference against a player with system mastery.

DCs scale more easily than a monster's saves (though not necessarily more easily than a min/maxed classed character's saves).

Dark Archive

@ Nefreet, normally people claim that a poorly built blind caster quadrapeledric who is mute, bound, buried and dead is an amazing character with nearly all possibilities at their fingertips- no matter whether they have actually prepared for that particular issue or not. It doesn't matter. They could have and so they must have and so this dead blind, no arms and no legs caster who cannot speak is amazing still because he has infinite options.

You are saying that because he took a feat or purchased a slightly expensive item, and has a high casting stat this caster is a one trick pony. So now he has more spells per level per day, better concentration checks, more skill points and higher dc's and somehow he is more limited than if he had not bought the rod and had less int and more...dex? I am really confused.

PS. Dazing spell is really powerful. Obnoxiously so.

In my games my enemies use the same tactics a player would. If my players optimize and eradicate things by going first and forcing impossible saves, round after round and enemies just have no chance, awesome. Eventually, the word will get around. Intelligent foes will either step up their game or their superiors will get involved (and by default they come with a better tactical A game).

I usually keep some fraction of encounters a step or two ahead of whatever optimization level my players have. This ensures they get their butts handed to them often enough to learn to work together better and play smart but also gives them room to grow, find clever solutions, even see character ideas in action they had never before considered. Dazing spell is something I would likely apply to a group that was pretty optimized-I'd like to see what their answer to such bull crap would be (assuming that enough of them were capable of surviving such an encounter to begin with).


I dislike dazing spell. I feel like the daze duration should be limited to a round or it should work like the psionic version of dazing spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes. It is one thing I ban at my tables.

Nefreet wrote:

I'll have done PFS for two years next month. I've GMed exactly 150 games, have been to Conventions all across the West Coast, and have 5 retired characters.

I've never seen anyone waste gold on a Dazing Metamagic Rod.

Waste? Waste? Tell that to my sorcerer buddies DC 24 fireballs, its a rare thing when most the enemies aren't dazed, and its game over. Since he only has like 8 a day it only wrecks every encounter when you play with him. The fact he can change elements doesn't help.

The worst is the summoner, because he has wall of fire at third level. Dazing rod, they need to make at least TWO saving throws to not be dazed, otherwise its game over. My summoner has one, he can pretty much solo scenarios if there are no enemies immune to fire.

He's also not a one trick pony, often one of the most versatile PC's on the field (he's a summoning focused summoner after all).

Dazing should be banned from PFS. I would gladly turn in my rod to see it banned.

Liberty's Edge

René P wrote:
Save or suck do indeed suck when you fail the save. If that spoils your fun as a GM maybe don’t approach it from a ‘me vs players’ angle. When players destroy the creatures I’m GMing I cheer for them!

I think you are misrepresenting Seraphimpunk position, it isn't GM vs Players, it is about making a encounter meaningless, a simple speed bump that drain a few resources.

It is hard to cheer when an encounter become "a spellcaster act, then the other guys mop up without even the need to roll dices".

Dark Archive

Whoo! TX!
Saw a summoner with dazing black tentacles once.

The Exchange

If it really bugs you, start using it against the party too. It may even lead to a TPK and your annoying caster might rebuild.

It's pretty powerful, but many magic effects are.

The best judge if its too powerful or not is how many players take it, and how often do they use it per day. If either of those is lots, then there's a good chance it's probably more powerful than it should be.

Your other option is to start changing encounters a bit (not possible in PFS, but certainly possible in home games). Have more opponents at lower CR to suck up those dazing spells. The lower CR allows for more encounters per day without messing up xp progression, or allows for more opponents per encounter.

Single creature encounters are always anticlimactic due to party action economy. Any kind of decent spell or feat can totally ruin single creature encounters.

Also, sometimes it's actually good to let the players feel really powerful. 3 times a day with meta magic rod isn't so bad. Give them 5 or six encounters to make them at least think about when to use it.

Cheers


If he hates Dazing Spell wait till he has to play up against a SoS witch or an Oracle of Heavens Color Spray build -.-


PIXIE DUST wrote:
If he hates Dazing Spell wait till he has to play up against a SoS witch or an Oracle of Heavens Color Spray build -.-

The only advantage these two have is that they come on line sooner. At the mid to higher levels Dazing is vastly better as it can easily target numerous enemies, can be attached to spells which don't allow SR and can be attached to spells which affect magic immune things like Golems.


FLite wrote:

Well, as a feat, you are casting a 4th level spell, but doing first level damage. That is a pretty big trade off. (admittedly, if you pick your spell right, you get a lot of dazes, but is it really worse than an intensified fireball at high levels?

As a rod, it costs 14000, and lets you turn three 3rd level spell slots into 6th level spell slots. The likelyhood of having two of those is not great.

The other thing is that beyond a certain point, creatures good saves seem to go up faster than DCs. Which is great for the players when your spell targets the creatures bad save, but I have also seen safe or suck casters sit their uselessly pinging save or sucks off a big bad who had to roll a 4 or less to be affected, because they didn't have anything else they could do.

Erm

Quote:
Metamagic rods hold the essence of a metamagic feat, allowing the user to apply metamagic effects to spells (but not spell-like abilities ) as they are cast. This does not change the spell slot of the altered spell.

Targeting reflex with a DC 20-24 is something like a 95 to 70% chance for most monsters at higher levels to fail.

I bought one thinking dazing flaming sphere would be good. It was. Too good that is. To say nothing of dazing fireball, dazing burst of radiance, and call lighting on my druid. I used it in the weakest forms and it still won encounters literally by itself. I had not intended to do so but I really didn't understand how game breaking the rods would be.

On this note a horrifically under costed rod is every echoing spell rod ever compared to pearls/pages.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:

Most existing effects, like stinking cloud, have long lists of critters they don't work on.

Dazing spell works on practically everything.

(Also, you must be fighting in pretty specific circumstances if stinking cloud is actually winning every fight for you.)

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.


Dhjika wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

Most existing effects, like stinking cloud, have long lists of critters they don't work on.

Dazing spell works on practically everything.

(Also, you must be fighting in pretty specific circumstances if stinking cloud is actually winning every fight for you.)

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 would be a very reasonable fix to the metamagic, similar to what I had already mentioned above.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Undone wrote:
On this note a horrifically under costed rod is every echoing spell rod ever compared to pearls/pages.

What's so bad about three extra spells per day? (And you only get them one extra time each, unlike a bag of pearls which can be used on the same spell over and over if need be.)


Ravingdork wrote:
Undone wrote:
On this note a horrifically under costed rod is every echoing spell rod ever compared to pearls/pages.
What's so bad about three extra spells per day? (And you only get them one extra time each, unlike a bag of pearls which can be used on the same spell over and over if need be.)

That is a fair point I had not considered.

It's not that it's overpowered (Although the level 6 one is pretty darn powerful at 54k) it's more that it the echoing spells if you for example are a spontaneous caster are just better for the most part.

It's highly cost effective and very powerful. It's not that the item is BROKEN it's that it's cheaper than it should be. Which might be ok if you want to give casters more toys.

That said I think the best solution to dazing isn't to remove or change what dazing does. Just make it a +5 spell level bonus. Make the rod cost 54,000 for lesser and add a line that says "Nothing can reduce the increase in spell level of this metamagic."


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.


Nefreet wrote:


The Dazing build is a one-trick pony, just like the others. Any one-trick pony is annoying. But they have their weaknesses that should not be discounted. Usually it's doing anything that doesn't involve blasting. Try taking them through a dinner party or a wedding, or just trying to capture somebody alive. Their metamagic rod won't be able to help them much there.

Calling a build that only needs one feat/one magic item to function a "one trick pony" seems a bit hyperbolic.

That's a ton of extra resources left over to do... everything else. Even a sorcerer is going to have a lot of extra spells known after they get some dazing fuel.


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)


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.


the secret fire wrote:
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.

Another simple solution is to rule that FoM negates daze and stun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Certainly the issue is everyone forgot about the condition when building the bestiaries as mentioned above

Eratta that and its all good


Undone wrote:
the secret fire wrote:
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.

Another simple solution is to rule that FoM negates daze and stun.

That's a solution that benefits PCs far more than it benefits the poor monsters (who usually won't have access to freedom of movement). =P


the secret fire wrote:
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.

That really isn't true at all. Preventing it working on things immune to mind affecting takes out undead, plants, oozes, constructs and vermin. Of those only Undead are actually any sort of threat to any vaguely prepared caster. The rest rarely have much in the way of special attacks that matter and generally have one or more cripplingly bad save. Golems are a prime example being rendered virtually useless by anything from Create Pit to Glitterdust to Aqueous Orb.

At higher levels your dangerous opposition tends to consist of fiends, dragons, undead and classed NPC opponents or monsters. Dazing works just fine on all of them except undead.


Zhangar wrote:
Undone wrote:
the secret fire wrote:
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.

Another simple solution is to rule that FoM negates daze and stun.
That's a solution that benefits PCs far more than it benefits the poor monsters (who usually won't have access to freedom of movement). =P

Pretty much exactly this. FoM simply isn't a common enough buff.

I might be inclined to change it to stunning things for a single round. That removes its ability to affect a wide range of opponents while keeping many affected and stops it being a virtual auto win while the rest of the group wail on the now useless opponent. I would also restrict it to only working on instantaneous spells and possibly only instantaneous evocation spells. That removes stuff like wall of fire as a virtual auto win if the save is failed. Conjuration also doesn't need to be able to add daze on top of everything else.

Personally I would also ban all metamagic reducing traits or other abilities and remove metamagic rods of quicken, dazing or persistent spell and the staff of the master necromancer.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Lot of schrodinger's encounter here.

Against single enemies, it's a hold person/monster, basically.

Against a horde, it's a 6th level spell (discounting hacks) (so, MASS hold person) that will get everyone who fails a save.

But wait, you have hacks, like the rod of metamagic, or the traits/feats/whatever that let you drop the price! So it's a level 3 spell (with incidental expenses) that can bring a horde to a dead stop.

Also, we worry about alternate saves, since reflex rapidly becomes everyone's "weak save" at higher levels.

Also, because they never named its type, it doesn't have immunities.

You really want to nerf it, I'd suggest adding "will save every round" like hold monster has. You can still tag a dragon with it (you can tag a dragon with Icy Prison to much greater effect) and the already-short duration is dropped even more. The targets aren't helpless, but the party might get the occasional "free round" to take swings.

Also, throw more encounters at the party. If 3 spells per day is all it takes, they aren't facing enough ambushes. If they have a second or third rod, break one of them. Your monsters have sunder abilities, use them.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zhangar wrote:
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)

I think always having it last for 1 round, regardless of spell level, would be a nice start.

1 to 50 of 145 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / is Dazing metamagic as annoying for anyone else? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.