I would say no with Sun Metal. The other two spells aren't on the PRD so I can't comment.
I'm not certain dazing spell or similar things can be applied to non-offensive spells or not.
Honestly I tend not to worry about it as dazing spell, persistent spell, and rime spell have been banned from my games. It would be nice to know the official answer though.
I would say that you could with Sun Metal and Fire Shield; I'm not 100% certain about Gorum's Armor.
The former two are spells, and they deal damage; it might not be a direct-damage spell like, say, a Fireball, but the spells cause damage. Dazing Spell's text does not state that the spell must deal 'direct damage'.
The problem with Sun Metal to me is that the target is the sword. The spell affects the sword, it just so happens that it basically gives the sword a +1 enhancement (either flaming or frost). So I don't think it works because of that. Admittedly I'm not really positive, and the dazing spell metamagic is too good in my experience to actually allow it's use in game.
The problem with Sun Metal to me is that the target is the sword. The spell affects the sword, it just so happens that it basically gives the sword a +1 enhancement (either flaming or frost). So I don't think it works because of that. Admittedly I'm not really positive, and the dazing spell metamagic is too good in my experience to actually allow it's use in game.
I would agree except that the phrasing of Dazing doesn't state that the spell has to target a foe and do damage; it just states that the spell has to do damage.
Level Increase: +3 (a dazing spell uses up a spell slot three levels higher than the spell’s actual level.
Spells that do not inflict damage do not benefit from this feat.
Now, if the feat stated something like "When the creature you target takes damage from this spell," then I would agree that it doesn't work, because you aren't targeting a creature. As it stands, the only real condition outlined is that the spell deals damage - and even though it's being cast on the sword, the Sun Metal spell is the portion that's dealing fire damage to the target.
|
Now, if the feat stated something like "When the creature you target takes damage from this spell," then I would agree that it doesn't work, because you aren't targeting a creature. As it stands, the only real condition outlined is that the spell deals damage - and even though it's being cast on the sword, the Sun Metal spell is the portion that's dealing fire damage to the target.
Ehmm: "You can modify a spell to daze a creature damaged by the spell. When a creature takes damage from this spell, they become dazed for a number of rounds equal to the original level of the spell. "
The spell must do the damage, not a effect generated by the spell.
Sun metal: "The target weapon ignites into flame that does not hurt the weapon or the wielder, but damages those hit by the weapon." The enemy is damaged by an effect, not the spell.
Fire shield: "This spell wreathes you in flame and causes damage to each creature that attacks you in melee." The spell damage the attacker, so it should work.
Gorum's armoer: "The targeted suit of armor or shield sprouts thousands of tiny iron spikes like porcupine quills. These do not harm the armor’s wearer (though donning or removing armor under the effects of this spell takes twice as long), but they act as armor spikes or shield spikes (as appropriate)." The spikes damage the attacker, not the spell. Not applicable.
Sun metal: "The target weapon ignites into flame that does not hurt the weapon or the wielder, but damages those hit by the weapon." The enemy is damaged by an effect, not the spell.
I fail to see that the effect and the spell can be separated in this case. It's not like you're using Spark to ignite a fire; the spell itself is the flame on the blade, which is why it doesn't hurt the wielder, and which is why the fire would go out when the duration of the spell is reached.
|
|
Sun metal: "The target weapon ignites into flame that does not hurt the weapon or the wielder, but damages those hit by the weapon." The enemy is damaged by an effect, not the spell.I fail to see that the two are separate. It's not like you're using Spark to ignite a fire; the spell itself is the flame on the blade, which is why it doesn't hurt the wielder.
The spell activate an effect: flames on the blade. It don't do any damage by itself.
It is the same as Magic weapon. It don't do any damage by itself. It simply add damage to something.
I'll FAQ. As I said, I don't agree that the effect and the spell in this case can be separated.
If the spell stated that it caused the sword to burst into flame, and then it stayed on fire perpetually until you dunked it in water, then I would agree that the effect is separated from the spell, and you couldn't use Dazing on it. But the fact that the spell has a duration, which implies that the fire goes out after the duration ends, says to me that the flame is both the spell and the effect.
Graeme and 137ben already voiced my point.
Reductio ad absurdum: A Fireball 'spell' doesn't do any damage; it summons a bead of energy that explodes when it hits something, based on the spell's description. But I don't think anyone would argue that you could put Dazing on a Fireball.
Now, Fireball has two damage effects: It deals damage from the spell itself, and then can continue to deal damage if it happens to set someone or something on fire. That ongoing fire is no longer part of the spell; it's a side-effect of the spell, and so I'd say it wouldn't daze anyone.
If Sun Metal basically functioned like dipping your sword into oil and then igniting it, I might agree it shouldn't daze; but as it stands, the flame is the spell, and thus would be considered the spell dealing damage.
Now, if the feat stated something like "When the creature you target takes damage from this spell," then I would agree that it doesn't work, because you aren't targeting a creature. As it stands, the only real condition outlined is that the spell deals damage - and even though it's being cast on the sword, the Sun Metal spell is the portion that's dealing fire damage to the target.Ehmm: "You can modify a spell to daze a creature damaged by the spell. When a creature takes damage from this spell, they become dazed for a number of rounds equal to the original level of the spell. "
The spell must do the damage, not a effect generated by the spell.
Sun metal: "The target weapon ignites into flame that does not hurt the weapon or the wielder, but damages those hit by the weapon." The enemy is damaged by an effect, not the spell.
Fire shield: "This spell wreathes you in flame and causes damage to each creature that attacks you in melee." The spell damage the attacker, so it should work.
Gorum's armoer: "The targeted suit of armor or shield sprouts thousands of tiny iron spikes like porcupine quills. These do not harm the armor’s wearer (though donning or removing armor under the effects of this spell takes twice as long), but they act as armor spikes or shield spikes (as appropriate)." The spikes damage the attacker, not the spell. Not applicable.
Agreed. That'd be like claiming if you applied Dazing Spell to Summon Monster, all of the monster's attacks would force a will save vs. Daze. The spell is no more "doing the damage" there than a fire shield or sun metal is.
|
|
Sun metal: "The target weapon ignites into flame that does not hurt the weapon or the wielder, but damages those hit by the weapon." The enemy is damaged by an effect, not the spell.I fail to see that the two are separate. It's not like you're using Spark to ignite a fire; the spell itself is the flame on the blade, which is why it doesn't hurt the wielder.
The spell activate an effect: flames on the blade. It don't do any damage by itself.
It is the same as Magic weapon. It don't do any damage by itself. It simply add damage to something.
So, that logic would also mean that Dazing Spell won't work with Dragon's Breath because the breath weapon is an effect and not the spell itself.
Wrong: "Dragon's Breath Area cone-shaped burst or line"
The spell don't give you a breath weapon.
Similarly for Fire Breath (it gives the ability to breath fire, not an immediate breath of fire),
Fire Breath: "Area cone-shaped burst or line Up to thrice during this spell's duration, you can belch forth a cone of fire as a standard action."
It is peculiar as it allow you to activate the spell effect 3 times, but it is a burst with an area effect, it don't target you.
I would say that it will apply.
and Touch of Slime (this coats your hand with slime, and nothing happens until you touch something)
Where does the spell end and the effect of the spell start? Taking Touch of Slime as an example, the spell itself does no damage. You have to make a melee touch attack with your hand (or weapon for a Magus with spellstrike), so your logic would be that you can't use Dazing Spell with this (or any other touch attack spell).
That certainly weakens its usefulness, but is it RAW or RAI?
"Touch of Slime Range touch Target living creature touched"
It is a spell with a range of touch. You read too much in the fluff part of the spell.
Sun metal: "The target weapon ignites into flame that does not hurt the weapon or the wielder, but damages those hit by the weapon." The enemy is damaged by an effect, not the spell.I fail to see that the two are separate. It's not like you're using Spark to ignite a fire; the spell itself is the flame on the blade, which is why it doesn't hurt the wielder.
The spell activate an effect: flames on the blade. It don't do any damage by itself.
It is the same as Magic weapon. It don't do any damage by itself. It simply add damage to something.
So, that logic would also mean that Dazing Spell won't work with Dragon's Breath because the breath weapon is an effect and not the spell itself.
Wrong: "Dragon's Breath Area cone-shaped burst or line"
The spell don't give you a breath weapon.
Sure sounds like it's granting you a breath weapon to me, even if it's not cast on yourself. It doesn't say that a blast of energy breath suddenly appears in front of you; it says you breathe it out.
Regardless, the basis of your argument seems to be something that doesn't exist anywhere in the text of Dazing spell: Nowhere does it state anything about the target. All that it states is that the spell has to do damage.
So my argument would be this: Does the spell's text have damage dice or indicate damage dealt in it? If the effect is dependent on the existence and duration of the spell (again, the difference between say, a fireball and setting something on fire with spark), then the spell is the effect.
You know, I'd be ok with Dazing spell working on summon monster. I mean, you are summoning a critter that is 3 spell levels behind you. It won't hit anything. And sure, you can lower the modifier with those two traits, but that's a problem with stacking traits that shouldn't.
Even with spell perfection, you can only cast summon monster 6. At level 15, I don't think that's going to be over-powered.
I suppose there could be an argument based on the spell school. Dragon's Breath, Fireball, etc. are evocation spells, while Sun Metal is a transmutation.
But even then I'd say that everyone would agree it would work with Frostbite, which is transmutation.
I still see the only real condition as 'does the spell do damage?' Sun Metal does damage; I see it targeting a weapon as irrelevant, because spell = effect in this case, and the effect is damage.
If it works on Sun Metal, I suppose it would work on Flame Arrow.
You know, I'd be ok with Dazing spell working on summon monster. I mean, you are summoning a critter that is 3 spell levels behind you. It won't hit anything. And sure, you can lower the modifier with those two traits, but that's a problem with stacking traits that shouldn't.
Even with spell perfection, you can only cast summon monster 6. At level 15, I don't think that's going to be over-powered.
Actually this would be stupidly over powered. Allow me
SM 5 (Not 6).
Summon 1d4+2 Lantern archons. Two separate rays at touch attacks.
If you summon average (5) that's 10 rays, of which 7 should hit. That's 7 "Save or stand there for 5 rounds." at DC 25+
With sacred summons and divine tact you'll go first and daze out up to 3-4 targets automatically.
Ok, fine :D
I think the only problem is that you can re-apply the daze. I think I would be fine with it if it was limited to once per target per spell. I think if you squint a little, you can read Dazing Spell to mean that :p
Once you do that, I don't think its very different from a maximized empowered dazing fireball. You trade focus, for more targets and more damage, which is fine
I don't usually play at high-levels, so I did not notice the lantern archon bit.
----------------------
Thinking about it, dazing spell is silly because you can throw a dazing spell every round, and the effect lasts multiple rounds. It really needs a rider of "A creature that (saves against/is affected by) your dazing spell, can not be dazed by this metamagic feat for 24 hours.
Not sure which condition should grant immunity, but something like that.
Lantern Archons over time are probably the best use, but for immediate oomph, it's hard to beat a charging pouncer with 3 or more natural attacks, like a tiger (the rake attacks would get dazing too!)
And no, limiting it to a target once per spell is still broken. You're still getting a ton of encounter-ending save or loses off the monsters you summon.
And the level cost? Ever hear of metamagic rods? Or the Spell perfection feat? Or Magical Lineage trait?
Even strictly limited to only spells that DIRECTLY deal damage, dazing spell is still one of the most broken feats in the game. For the most broken category of classes in the game. Stop trying to houserule it to be even better.
I think if the spell itself is damaging foes... NOT summoning creatures that then damages foes...NOT shielding someone with a buff that then damages foes... dazing would apply.
So Black Tentacles, Ball Lightning, Wall of Fire, etc... would all work.
I would not be terribly saddened if it only worked with spells that simply did xdy damage outright (or perhaps deal xdy damage plus some other effect), though. It is a broken feat, after all.
I think the Dazing spell doesn't work if it specifically enhances something else- or simply put, is not a standalone spell.
Being a 'standalone' spell means (in my idea) that it doesn't require any separate action that is not part of 'casting' the spell itself from the caster or the beneficiary.
Dazing Summon Monster doesn't work because the final delivery of the damage depends not on the casting of the spell but on the action of the summoned being.
Dazing Greater Magic Weapon doesn't work because casting the spell does not cause damage to another creature. It merely enhances the function of another damage-causing medium (weapon swing). In a way, the wielder of the buffed weapon is the 'summoned creature' as per Dazing Summon Monster.
Dazing Fireball does work as everyone can agree.
Dazing Delayed-blast Fireball does work even though the trigger is now different; it doesn't rely on something outside the spell's description to do damage. Its action is completely based on the spell's description without dazing metamagic.
Dazing Call Lightning/Fire Breath do work because later calling of the bolt/breath are still casting the same spell. In a way, they have an extended segment of the same spell that the caster can choose to activate later.
Dazing Stone Spikes does work because the delivery of the spell is complete upon casting. What triggers the spell is ultimately irrelevant.
Dazing Sun Metal doesn't work because the final delivery of the spell is dependent on a separate action on part of the weapon's wielder.
Dazing Fire Shield/Golum's Armor does work because the delivery of the spell is complete upon casting, the same way as casting a dazing stone spikes. Whether the damage is triggered or not is not dependent upon the action of the caster nor the beneficiary.
Dazing Sun Metal doesn't work because the final delivery of the spell is dependent on a separate action on part of the weapon's wielder.
Does that mean you believe it can't be used with touch spells? The free action you use to touch to deliver might be granted by the casting of the spell, but it's still a free action separate from the spell itself.
Does that mean you believe it can't be used with touch spells? The free action you use to touch to deliver might be granted by the casting of the spell, but it's still a free action separate from the spell itself.
Let's not get too picky here (although we know we can't resist that). That would be the same case as Call Lightning where those extra action required to deliver the attack should be considered an extended segment of the spell cast.
A good guideline would be to see whether the action made to apply the effect of the spell (like delivering touch spell, casting down the bolts of lightning for call lightning, breathing fire, throwing of the fireball etc) would normally do damage on its own or not.
Gesturing without having cast Call Lightning beforehand would not normally do damage, neither will exhaling or doing a throwing motion or touching a being. Special exceptions may exist (e.g. a lich's touch attack) but they are exceptions, not the norm.
So even a caster whose hand is covered with contact poison should still be able to deliver Dazing Shock Grasp because touching the target itself normally does not do damage and the poison, along with the spell, are exceptional cases tracked separately.
Let's not get too picky here (although we know we can't resist that). That would be the same case as Call Lightning where those extra action required to deliver the attack should be considered an extended segment of the spell cast.
So those standard actions are 'included' in the spell because they are necessary for the spell to deal damage.
Let's say that you cast Sun Metal. What's necessary for that spell to deal damage? You must contact the enemy with your weapon. Otherwise, the spell is pointless.
Therefore, I'd argue that under the same theory you're using to 'include' the extra standard actions in the casting of Call Lightning, so to are the attacks you make with your Sun Metal weapon, because they are the actions required in order to have the spell deal damage.
While I see the point you're driving at, the basis of the argument seems to be, "the action you're taking to deliver the spell must not deal damage normally". But that's not stated anywhere in the feat, and reading that in to "When a creature takes damage from the spell..." is taking RAI to its limit, in my opinion.
Understood, Undone - unfortunately I think that it is open to interpretation right now.
|
|
To repeat it again, the key part is what do the damage:
You can modify a spell to daze a creature damaged by the spell. When a creature takes damage from this spell, they become dazed for a number of rounds equal to the original level of the spell.
With Fire shield the spell damage the attacker, with Sun metal it add a property to your weapon.
So your argument is that the target determines if the spell can be dazing. If that is the case fire shield can't be dazing because it targets you and has no immediate effect. Which again is fine I just want a hard and fast rule as to what can and can't be dazing spelled. Given the wording I just can't see how you could possibly interpret it to apply to fire shield and not sun metal.
No, my argument is that what do the damage matter. Not the target.
Sadly the "hard and fast rule" that you want don't exist.A reasonable start is to look if the spell allow for Spell resistance. If SR allow to avoid the damage the spell is doing the damage (sun metal has "Spell Resistance yes (object)", i.e. the object resist the spell. not the target) but it is not an absolute rule, as there are direct damage spells (mostly conjuration) that don't allow SR.
You need to read the whole spell to see if the Dazing spell metamagic work or not.
And in PFS you will find table variation too.
@Diego Rossi: I still see an arbitrary separation of effect from spell. You believe that the fire damage caused by the weapon is an effect of the spell, and that the effect does the damage (not the spell); I believe that the effect is the spell, and thus the spell is doing damage.
I don't think it's really worthwhile to go around again because neither of us has really said anything new on the matter (there are far too many exceptions to the SR rule for me to accept that as a relevant argument).