Dazing spell + damage over time


Rules Questions

51 to 62 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Ambush... wrote:

"By that interpretation, Firefall wouldn't work with it, regardless of whether or not the spell said "fire." It's a pretty safe interpretation, I think. I could see why someone might allow it, though."

No matter. Just turn on the flaming armor spikes (on the mithril lamellar cuirass) and its all good. Its real fire. Last all day even underwater :).

Yeah I dont like the 5% spell failure there. I went with the Silken ceremonial armor but flaming spikes doesn't work with the flavor there. ;) Also not so sure I want to be point blank in the middle of a nuke, even if I prep with resistance first.

I was hoping for a cheap spell (level 0 to 1) that would simply produce a small fire at a location as prep. I could use flaming sphere but that a little overkill for this.


if you have the cash, a flaming mithril buckler also works, has no spell failure etc.


Ilja wrote:
if you have the cash, a flaming mithril buckler also works, has no spell failure etc.

True but still flavor issues and still in the middle of a huge area o' boom. The damage is minor, I just wish i could use something to set it up from afar. Guess flaming sphere it is.


Grayfeather wrote:
Ilja wrote:
if you have the cash, a flaming mithril buckler also works, has no spell failure etc.
True but still flavor issues and still in the middle of a huge area o' boom. The damage is minor, I just wish i could use something to set it up from afar. Guess flaming sphere it is.

Yeah, or an alchemist fire.


Ilja wrote:
Grayfeather wrote:
Ilja wrote:
if you have the cash, a flaming mithril buckler also works, has no spell failure etc.
True but still flavor issues and still in the middle of a huge area o' boom. The damage is minor, I just wish i could use something to set it up from afar. Guess flaming sphere it is.
Yeah, or an alchemist fire.

Goodness, who uses primitive alchemist fire! (hides rolled up shrunken tub of oil). But seriously youd think there'd be a cantrip for making a torch size fire in an unoccupied square.


I didn't get a reply to this so I will repeat.

Can a dazed creature hold its breath? I am guessing yes, since the "take no actions" part of daze likely means actual in-game actions and I can see no reference to deliberately holding one's breath as a type of action.

But, that is just a guess. I'm wondering if aqueous orb would be a decent "roll around and daze enemies one by one" type of spell. It has a reflex like flaming sphere but isn't subject to fire resistance. Also, what would resist the nonlethal dmg?


Some Random Player wrote:

Can a dazed creature hold its breath? I am guessing yes, since the "take no actions" part of daze likely means actual in-game actions and I can see no reference to deliberately holding one's breath as a type of action.

But, that is just a guess.

I agree. To further the viewpoint, a dazed creature isn't helpless, and therefore still has some minimum sense of self-preservation. Choosing to breathe, or not to breathe is quite reasonable.

Some Random Player wrote:
I'm wondering if aqueous orb would be a decent "roll around and daze enemies one by one" type of spell. It has a reflex like flaming sphere but isn't subject to fire resistance. Also, what would resist the nonlethal dmg?

A lot of creatures are flat-out immune to nonlethal damage, such as undead and constructs.

I do also want to point out that if your favorite dazing spell deals fire damage, one possible solution to the issue is Elemental Spell metamagic.

Scarab Sages

Grayfeather wrote:
Ambush... wrote:

"By that interpretation, Firefall wouldn't work with it, regardless of whether or not the spell said "fire." It's a pretty safe interpretation, I think. I could see why someone might allow it, though."

No matter. Just turn on the flaming armor spikes (on the mithril lamellar cuirass) and its all good. Its real fire. Last all day even underwater :).

Yeah I dont like the 5% spell failure there. I went with the Silken ceremonial armor but flaming spikes doesn't work with the flavor there. ;) Also not so sure I want to be point blank in the middle of a nuke, even if I prep with resistance first.

I was hoping for a cheap spell (level 0 to 1) that would simply produce a small fire at a location as prep. I could use flaming sphere but that a little overkill for this.

First: A Mithril Lamellar Cuirass has no spell failure chance or armor check penalty. (Mithril reduces the SF chance to zero on this armor)

Second: If you have a Fire Specialist level 8+, you merely shape the fire around you and all friendlies. If not, then Firefall is entirely too large of an area to use in most encounters for daze.

Third: If you have to burn a standard action (not to mention the spell) to activate fire then the opportunity cost is a tad too high IMO for the spell to be weildy.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ilja wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Continual flame isn't a fire, it is simply a source of light. The "flame" part is only a description of his aspect.

Having "flame" mentioned three times - both in name, effect and description - makes me think that there's a fair basis of calling it fire (as they're synonyms). It's mentioned more than hail is in ice storm, but if there was like a spell that required you to have hail on hand I think it'd be unfair to disallow using Ice Storm for that.

But as said, it doesn't specify fire, just flame, and although they are synonyms it is open for interpretation. Neither allowing nor disallowing are really house rules, just different interpretation.

The spell say that it is a heatless flame.

The definition of fire say:
a. A rapid, persistent chemical change that releases heat and light and is accompanied by flame, especially the exothermic oxidation of a combustible substance.
b. Burning fuel or other material: a cooking fire; a forest fire

I don't think that a heatless flame is the same thing of a fire.

.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Grayfeather wrote:
Ilja wrote:
Grayfeather wrote:
Ilja wrote:
if you have the cash, a flaming mithril buckler also works, has no spell failure etc.
True but still flavor issues and still in the middle of a huge area o' boom. The damage is minor, I just wish i could use something to set it up from afar. Guess flaming sphere it is.
Yeah, or an alchemist fire.
Goodness, who uses primitive alchemist fire! (hides rolled up shrunken tub of oil). But seriously youd think there'd be a cantrip for making a torch size fire in an unoccupied square.
PRD wrote:

Spark

School evocation [fire]; Level bard 0, cleric 0, druid 0, sorcerer/wizard 0, witch 0

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components V or S

Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)

Target one Fine object

Duration instantaneous

Saving Throw Fortitude negates (object); Spell Resistance yes (object)

You can make an unattended Fine flammable object catch on fire. This works as if you were using flint and steel except that you can use spark in any sort of weather and it takes much less time to actually ignite an object.

You asked? :-)


Diego Rossi wrote:
Ilja wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Continual flame isn't a fire, it is simply a source of light. The "flame" part is only a description of his aspect.

Having "flame" mentioned three times - both in name, effect and description - makes me think that there's a fair basis of calling it fire (as they're synonyms). It's mentioned more than hail is in ice storm, but if there was like a spell that required you to have hail on hand I think it'd be unfair to disallow using Ice Storm for that.

But as said, it doesn't specify fire, just flame, and although they are synonyms it is open for interpretation. Neither allowing nor disallowing are really house rules, just different interpretation.

The spell say that it is a heatless flame.

The definition of fire say:
a. A rapid, persistent chemical change that releases heat and light and is accompanied by flame, especially the exothermic oxidation of a combustible substance.
b. Burning fuel or other material: a cooking fire; a forest fire

I don't think that a heatless flame is the same thing of a fire.

.

And I think that's a completely fair ruling. I don't think it's the only possible ruling though, even without breaking into houserules. There's different definitions, and as we all know, sometimes the real-world definitions aren't really used in-game (the definition of energy (cold, fire, acid, electricity) is an obvious example not completely irrelevant in this situation)

I'm not saying "continual flame is clearly fire", I'm saying "depending on interpretation and how you define these things either way works".

If you use that dictionary to define fire and then compare it to heatless flame, you get a "this doesn't work". If you use the one I linked that states flame and fire and synonyms, "heatless flame" equals "heatless fire" and it works.

So: Might work, might not. Completely up to the DM.


Thanks - didn't know about which creatures are immune to nonlethal.

The PC I am targeting for this tactic is an elemental bloodline (air) sorcerer, so I can have a rolling electric sphere too.

I was also going to keep the aqueous orb for putting out fires and other things that water would be useful for. But since it won't be a good dazing spell I will likely leave the slot open for something else.

Kazejin wrote:


I agree. To further the viewpoint, a dazed creature isn't helpless, and therefore still has some minimum sense of self-preservation. Choosing to breathe, or not to breathe is quite reasonable.

A lot of creatures are flat-out immune to nonlethal damage, such as undead and constructs.

I do also want to point out that if your favorite dazing spell deals fire damage, one possible solution to the issue is Elemental Spell metamagic.

51 to 62 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Dazing spell + damage over time All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.