Most daze effects are mind-affecting, which oozes are immune to.
And even some daze effects that aren't explicitly listed as mind-affecting, may reasonably be ruled to be mind-affecting by your GM (I'm looking at you, Cape of Feinting.)
No they are not. They're immune to mind-affecting though, which covers most dazes. Any other rule on this would be a house rule.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^Thats also a good point to counter Avoron's. Fatigued is a weaker form of exhaustion because fatigue can turn into exhaustion. There are no conditions in which dazed turns into stunned, nor do the rules make any claim that daze is a weaker form of stunned, there for dazed is not a weaker form of stunned. They are similar, but they are not varrying strengths of the same condition.
Oozes are certainly not immune to daze, only mind-affects, which includes some dazes.
Nothing in the game is immune to the dazed condition, and dazed is not any form of stun. It is its own condition. That is one reason why dazing spell(metamagic feat) is so strong.
So Dazed>Stunned>Paralyzed or Staggered>Dazed>Stunned?
In order of effectiveness if a save is failed--> paralyzed>stunned<dazed
However if you want to go by which is easier to apply it is likely dazed>stunned>paralyzed.
By RAW nobody is immune to daze. In my game immunity to stun is also immunity to daze.
|
I don't recommend treating Daze as a lesser form of stun. It's true that nothing in the game is immune to it directly but many many things are immune to it indirectly.
I'm not aware of any form of applying daze that does not either: 1) Require a Fort save or 2) be a mind affecting effect. So all undead, plants, and constructs are immune to all forms of daze. And vermin, and oozes are immune to MOST forms of Daze. That means that roughly half the printed creatures are immune to it already which is roughly the same amount as are immune to stun. But making un-stunnable creatures immune to it too you've pretty much just nerfed the effect into oblivion with only a handful of creatures ever being able to be hit by it.
So no, it's already balanced, no need to re(un)balance it.
I don't recommend treating Daze as a lesser form of stun. It's true that nothing in the game is immune to it directly but many many things are immune to it indirectly.
I'm not aware of any form of applying daze that does not either: 1) Require a Fort save or 2) be a mind affecting effect. So all undead, plants, and constructs are immune to all forms of daze. And vermin, and oozes are immune to MOST forms of Daze. That means that roughly half the printed creatures are immune to it already which is roughly the same amount as are immune to stun. But making un-stunnable creatures immune to it too you've pretty much just nerfed the effect into oblivion with only a handful of creatures ever being able to be hit by it.
So no, it's already balanced, no need to re(un)balance it.
Dazing fireball. Is not mindaffecting and on a reflex save.
Aren't oozes also blind? That would make them immune to any effects based on light or vision.
I think there are still a few daze effects that could get through to them even with their other immunities.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dazing fireball. Is not mindaffecting and on a reflex save.I don't recommend treating Daze as a lesser form of stun. It's true that nothing in the game is immune to it directly but many many things are immune to it indirectly.
I'm not aware of any form of applying daze that does not either: 1) Require a Fort save or 2) be a mind affecting effect. So all undead, plants, and constructs are immune to all forms of daze. And vermin, and oozes are immune to MOST forms of Daze. That means that roughly half the printed creatures are immune to it already which is roughly the same amount as are immune to stun. But making un-stunnable creatures immune to it too you've pretty much just nerfed the effect into oblivion with only a handful of creatures ever being able to be hit by it.
So no, it's already balanced, no need to re(un)balance it.
True, forgot about that. I'd recommend nerfing THAT then rather than Daze as a whole if you have to nerf one of them. Perhaps making it a Fort save regardless of the spell it's riding on? Would make more sense then the way it's written anyway. Dazing Spell has always been kind of a cheesy abomination.
Someone should make a thread on this in the house rules forum. Given this is still going strong after Lifat and Wraithstrike gave the rules correct RAW answer 2 days ago this is obviously an issue multiple people really care to see addressed by a house rule in some form.
Speaking from a biological perspective, there are certainly circumstances (chemical or physical) that can have a dazing sort of effect on oozy-type creatures, such as amoebae, slime molds, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dazing fireball. Is not mindaffecting and on a reflex save.Indeed, dazing spell is a terrible metamagc feat for the game and it goes well beyond fireball. Dazing Aqueous Orb is a mobile engine of death and destruction on the battlefield which can daze whole swathes of enemies and is SR: No. Dazing Ice Spears is similarly effective pin point dazing for when your allies are mixed in with the enemy. Dazing Black Tentacles is especially hilarious for forcing many saves over multiple turns and it targets Will, often the weakest save of many enemies.
It gets especially egregious at level 15 when Spell Perfection comes online and you may as well forget about saving even if using a spell which targets a strong save.
I don't believe you can make Dazing Aqueous Orb or Dazing Black Tentacles or Dazing Ice Spears, any more than you can make Dazing Summon Nature's Ally.
These are conjuration spells, so the spell is not doing any damage and hence it gets no benefit. You are creating or summoning something, and that thing itself is doing damage, not the spell. If the spell itself was doing damage, it would have SR.
Ice spears should work, it is a conjuration [cold] spell.
I do agree that conjuration (creation) and conjuration (summoning) spells should not benefit from dazing, as their effect does not deal damage, it either creates/summons something which then later does damage.
Same reason that summon monster doesn't break invisibility it also can't be dazing.
Though black tentacles has an area, so casting it does break invisibility. And the spell effect is the tentacles... maybe you can do dazing creation spells, and just summoning is excluded.
True, forgot about that. I'd recommend nerfing THAT then rather than Daze as a whole if you have to nerf one of them. Perhaps making it a Fort save regardless of the spell it's riding on? Would make more sense then the way it's written anyway. Dazing Spell has always been kind of a cheesy abomination.Dazing fireball. Is not mindaffecting and on a reflex save.I don't recommend treating Daze as a lesser form of stun. It's true that nothing in the game is immune to it directly but many many things are immune to it indirectly.
I'm not aware of any form of applying daze that does not either: 1) Require a Fort save or 2) be a mind affecting effect. So all undead, plants, and constructs are immune to all forms of daze. And vermin, and oozes are immune to MOST forms of Daze. That means that roughly half the printed creatures are immune to it already which is roughly the same amount as are immune to stun. But making un-stunnable creatures immune to it too you've pretty much just nerfed the effect into oblivion with only a handful of creatures ever being able to be hit by it.
So no, it's already balanced, no need to re(un)balance it.
I would use Will rather than Fortitude since that's the save used if the spell has no save. But I suppose you could change that as well.
Ear-Piercing Scream does sonic damage to one target and dazes it, with a Fort save to resist daze and half damage. Perfect for oozes in my opinion, but unless you know you're going to face an ooze it's usefulness may vary.
Ice Spears doesn't have SR. So, it's not the spell itself that's doing the damage - you are creating ice, and the ice is doing damage. Not sure why it's not listed as both creation and cold, but regardless, the spell itself is not doing any damage, the spell just creates the spears.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but any spell that does damage itself is going to have SR.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ice Spears doesn't have SR. So, it's not the spell itself that's doing the damage - you are creating ice, and the ice is doing damage. Not sure why it's not listed as both creation and cold, but regardless, the spell itself is not doing any damage, the spell just creates the spears.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but any spell that does damage itself is going to have SR.
Most conjuration damage spells do not have SR, but it is "the spell itself" doing the damage. Acid splash, Acid arrow, acid fog, etc.
With Acid Splash, Acid Arrow, etc. it is not "the spell itself" that is doing damage, any more than Summon Nature's Ally is doing damage "itself". With Acid Splash (or Acid Arrow or Acid Fog,) you are creating acid and the acid is doing damage.
Just as there are no dazing deinonychi, there is no Dazing Acid Arrow.
Not immune to daze. It's one of those rules that should have been closed a long time ago, but hasn't been to the detriment of every DM out there having to deal with Dazing Spell or other dazing effects.
By RAW nobody is immune to daze. In my game immunity to stun is also immunity to daze.
This is wrong. Level 20 destiny bloodline bloodrager is immune to daze.
With Acid Splash, Acid Arrow, etc. it is not "the spell itself" that is doing damage, any more than Summon Nature's Ally is doing damage "itself". With Acid Splash (or Acid Arrow or Acid Fog,) you are creating acid and the acid is doing damage.
Just as there are no dazing deinonychi, there is no Dazing Acid Arrow.
The spell still created the acid. It did not create the dino, it pulled him from a different dimension.
The spell does damage when it is creation, because the spell itself created the acid, and deals the damage.
The spell does not do damage when it is summoning/calling, because it teleports a creature. The creature then does damage.
"Creation: A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates."
"Evocation spells manipulate magical energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end. In effect, an evocation draws upon magic to create something out of nothing."
There is not a significant difference between the creation of fire from a fireball, and the creation of acid from an acid splash.
With Acid Splash, Acid Arrow, etc. it is not "the spell itself" that is doing damage, any more than Summon Nature's Ally is doing damage "itself". With Acid Splash (or Acid Arrow or Acid Fog,) you are creating acid and the acid is doing damage.
Just as there are no dazing deinonychi, there is no Dazing Acid Arrow.
The spell still created the acid. It did not create the dino, it pulled him from a different dimension.
The spell does damage when it is creation, because the spell itself created the acid, and deals the damage.
The spell does not do damage when it is summoning/calling, because it teleports a creature. The creature then does damage.
"Creation: A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates."
"Evocation spells manipulate magical energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end. In effect, an evocation draws upon magic to create something out of nothing."
There is not a significant difference between the creation of fire from a fireball, and the creation of acid from an acid splash.
Yet one allows SR and the other dosent. And that major boost to conjuration spells now makes it hard to justify Daze on them.
The spell still created the acid. It did not create the dino, it pulled him from a different dimension.
The spell does damage when it is creation, because the spell itself created the acid, and deals the damage.
The spell does not do damage when it is summoning/calling, because it teleports a creature. The creature then does damage.
"Creation: A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates."
"Evocation spells manipulate magical energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end. In effect, an evocation draws upon magic to create something out of nothing."
There is not a significant difference between the creation of fire from a fireball, and the creation of acid from an acid splash.
The existence of SR shows that there is a significant difference between creation and evocation. Evocation spells are a barrage of magical force. Creation spells create mundane objects, which can then do damage.
By your logic, you could also use Dazing Major Creation and go around full-attacking with a dazing weapon. Or make a Dazing Mage's Faithful Hound.
Alright, so maybe just a blanket statement that dazing can't apply to conjuration spells would fix it?
Or that spells without SR can't be made dazing?
Alright, so maybe just a blanket statement that dazing can't apply to conjuration spells would fix it?
Or that spells without SR can't be made dazing?
At least some conjuration spells CAN be dazing - such as Cure Light Wounds, which allows SR.
But I think any spell that has no SR cannot be made dazing. On the grounds that any spell without SR is not directly doing damage, it is creating a mundane object that can then do damage.
So errata for dazing spell to change, "Spells that do not inflict damage do not benefit from this feat." to "Spells that do not inflict damage or do not allow spell resistance do not benefit from this feat." ?
Alright, so maybe just a blanket statement that dazing can't apply to conjuration spells would fix it?
Or that spells without SR can't be made dazing?
At least some conjuration spells CAN be dazing - such as Cure Light Wounds, which allows SR.
But I think any spell that has no SR cannot be made dazing. On the grounds that any spell without SR is not directly doing damage, it is creating a mundane object that can then do damage.
This screams of extreme hair splitting and is not a distinction which the spells make at all. By this same token a fireball isn't doing damage, you are just creating fire out of thin air to cause damage. SR: No spells are a valid target for dazing metamagic.
The problem is that easily attacking a condition like Daze to a huge range of different spells is a terrible idea.
Can you provide an example of a SR: No spell which directly causes damage?
Can you provide an example of a SR: No spell which directly causes damage?
Yes, acid splash. The argument that it does not is specious.
The problem is exacerbated in that nearly nothing is immune to daze as applied by dazing spell and you can apply it to spells which deal damage over time making them virtual death sentences. A dazing wall of fire imposes saves round after round. If you fail the first then you need to make 4 consecutive saves to avoid that duration from extending. Add in persistent spell and things get even more difficult.
Combine all of that with things like metamagic reducing traits, Rods/Staff of the Master and/or Spell Perfection and things get wildly out of control.
Dazing wall of fire is a 7th level spell. Add persistent and now it is a 9th level spell.
Dazing wall of fire is a 7th level spell. Add persistent and now it is a 9th level spell.The problem is exacerbated in that nearly nothing is immune to daze as applied by dazing spell and you can apply it to spells which deal damage over time making them virtual death sentences. A dazing wall of fire imposes saves round after round. If you fail the first then you need to make 4 consecutive saves to avoid that duration from extending. Add in persistent spell and things get even more difficult.
Combine all of that with things like metamagic reducing traits, Rods/Staff of the Master and/or Spell Perfection and things get wildly out of control.
Not with spell perfection, wayang spell hunter, and so forth.
Yes, acid splash. The argument that it does not is specious.
Can you provide an example of a SR: No spell which directly causes damage?
The spell creates an acid, the acid causes damage. Is using wall of iron to topple onto a creature also the spell causing damage?
Can you provide an example of a SR: No spell which directly causes damage?Yes, acid splash. The argument that it does not is specious.
Acid Splash does not cause damage any more than Major Creation causes damage.
The spell creates an acid, the acid causes damage. Is using wall of iron to topple onto a creature also the spell causing damage?Yes, acid splash. The argument that it does not is specious.
Can you provide an example of a SR: No spell which directly causes damage?
Thank you for demonstrating the speciousness of the argument.
Not with spell perfection, wayang spell hunter, and so forth.Dazing wall of fire is a 7th level spell. Add persistent and now it is a 9th level spell.The problem is exacerbated in that nearly nothing is immune to daze as applied by dazing spell and you can apply it to spells which deal damage over time making them virtual death sentences. A dazing wall of fire imposes saves round after round. If you fail the first then you need to make 4 consecutive saves to avoid that duration from extending. Add in persistent spell and things get even more difficult.
Combine all of that with things like metamagic reducing traits, Rods/Staff of the Master and/or Spell Perfection and things get wildly out of control.
Wayang can't apply, because it is not below 3rd level. Spell perfection means you're still at least 15th level, and while the spell could be strong, there's plenty of things immune to fire by that point that won't take damage from the spell. You're still looking at 6th level for a dazing persistant spell perfected wall of fire.
The spell creates an acid, the acid causes damage. Is using wall of iron to topple onto a creature also the spell causing damage?Yes, acid splash. The argument that it does not is specious.
Can you provide an example of a SR: No spell which directly causes damage?
Fireball creates fire, the fire causes damage.
Ice storm creates hailstones, the hailstones cause damage.
Inflict light wounds creates negative energy, the energy causes damage.
Attempting to distinguish this based on in-game logic won't work. The distinction between things that allow spell resistance and things that do not is often strictly mechanical, the rationale based on design considerations rather than representative ones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fireball creates fire, the fire causes damage.
Ice storm creates hailstones, the hailstones cause damage.
Inflict light wounds creates negative energy, the energy causes damage.
Attempting to distinguish this based on in-game logic won't work. The distinction between things that allow spell resistance and things that do not is often strictly mechanical.
Fireball creates a magical force that is assailing a creature.
Stone Call creates a mundane force that is assailing a creature.
Fireball is a spell that does damage magically - Stone Call is a spell that creates stones magically, and the stones (which are non-magical) do damage.