| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have never heard of this, they should keep making saves vs being dazed each time the spell deals damage. Its great for summoners who can use lesser rods with wall of fire. However, I do have a friend that says the spell must inflict damage. By his reading, the fire from the wall would not inflict daze, as its actually damage from the heat put out from the wall. If they walked through it, then they would need to make the save for dazing. This reading also stops it from working with spells like Pit and Black Tentacles.
Really though (even though I have a PC this affects) I with they would just ban Dazing. I would gladly turn in my dazing rod to get rid of it from play.
I've encountered quite a bit of table variation concerning dazing metamagic in PFS. Usually it is with Conjuration spells that create ongoing effects. Acid Arrow and Aqueous Orb have been some of the culprits. For Acid Arrow, I've been told it works on the first application of damage but none of the others. For Aqueous Orb, I've been told it works on their first save but none of the others, or it doesn't work at all.
I've just gotten used to the fact that there will be some variation, and if a GM happens to rule particularly unfavorably I just don't use that spell with them anymore. I actually stopped using Dazing Aqueous orb entirely because it wasn't very fun. (But that isn't really relevant)
|
When a creature takes damage from this spell, they become dazed for a number of rounds equal to the original level of the spellDid they take damage from the spell?
If the answer is "yes", then they're dazed.
If the answer is "no", then they're not.
That is not exactly true.
If the spell allows a saving throw, a successful save negates the daze effect. If the spell does not allow a save, the target can make a Will save to negate the daze effect.
A spell like Fireball where it is possible to take damage even on a successful save, would not daze anyone if they saved.
My question is, if someone had one of the many ways to block taking damage, like a brooch of shielding vs magic Missile, would they still be dazed if they failed the save?
No. They must take damage to be dazed.
Dazing Spell (Metamagic)You can daze creatures with the power of your spells.
Benefit: 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. If the spell allows a saving throw, a successful save negates the daze effect. If the spell does not allow a save, the target can make a Will save to negate the daze effect. If the spell effect also causes the creature to become dazed, the duration of this metamagic effect is added to the duration of the spell. 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.
If there's an effect that blocks all damage from going through, then it also blocks the rider dazing effect.
|
I had something like this come up the other day, to do with Toppling Spell and Magic Missile, and I think this is where your GM was coming from:
If you have multiple magic missiles with metamagic on the spell, if all of the missiles are hitting a single target, the metamagic effect only affects the target once.
If you have 3 missiles hitting 1 target, the metamagic effect occurs once.
If you have 3 missiles hitting 3 targets, the metamagic effect occurs three times, once per target.
The reason being that during that effect, the target took "some" damage, and that's what the metamagic feat specifies. It doesn't matter that it hit them 3 times; the spell effect did damage, and that's the trigger.
Basically, the metamagic effect applies once per spell per target, when they take damage.
I can only see two possible variations: it works throughout the duration, or not at all.
"Not at all" would be argued based on the summon monster argument: wall of fire (like summon monster) produces a something that is dealing the damage; the spell only creates that something, and isn't actually dealing the damage itself.
"Throughout the duration" is based on a plain reading of the rules. When the spell deals damage, either the target is dazed (fails the spell save, or fails the Will save vs. daze if there is no save,) or the target is not dazed.
Wall of fire deals damage at the start of the caster's turn, plus whenever someone tries to move through it, and does not allow a save.
I can understand why a GM would be frustrated by the Dazing Spell metamagic in conjunction with non-instant spells, due to the condition being of the "don't act" sort and already having a tactically useful duration. However, the "only dazes for one round" is clearly a house rule, not indicated by RAW until and unless it's FAQ'd or errata'd.
|
Hello!
During a session the other night I ended up using a dazing metamagic rod to cast wall of fire. It went off and the necessary creatures made their will saves as appropriate, most of them were dazed. The next round is where the issue arose. My wall of fire damaged them again and I asked for will saves. My GM informed me that in PFS it has been gone over time and time again that metamagic feats (or in this case rods) only apply to the first damaging instance of the spell. I since have done some looking around here on the forums and cannot find anything. I was wondering if anyone would happen to remember a forum or link or something that would apply to metamagic feats (or rods) only applying their effect on the first damaging instance of the spell.
Thanks ahead of time!
This reference is not correct in PFS. I have never heard of such a ruling. Any time the target takes damage from a dazing Wall of Fire the character needs to make a saving throw.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Any time the target takes damage from a dazing Wall of Fire the character needs to make a saving throw.
Other than reading "any time ... takes damage" to arrive at that interpretation, do you have anything to back that up? It is a fine interpretation, I'm just curious if there is anything to support it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"When a creature takes damage"
This can be interpreted a couple of ways. When could be the equivalent of whenever, which would indicate that each time a creature takes damage they make the save. It could instead though be the equivalent of 'if a creature takes damage' or 'once a creature takes damage.'
Consider this sentence: When I see you I'll give you $5.00.
A reasonable person would expect that the next time they saw that person, they would get the money (well, if the person is trustworthy anyway) but not that they would get 5.00 each time they saw that person in the future, or that playing peek-a-boo with them was a sure fire path to fame and fortune.
|
|
"When a creature takes damage"
This can be interpreted a couple of ways. When could be the equivalent of whenever, which would indicate that each time a creature takes damage they make the save. It could instead though be the equivalent of 'if a creature takes damage' or 'once a creature takes damage.'
Consider this sentence: When I see you I'll give you $5.00.
A reasonable person would expect that the next time they saw that person, they would get the money (well, if the person is trustworthy anyway) but not that they would get 5.00 each time they saw that person in the future, or that playing peek-a-boo with them was a sure fire path to fame and fortune.
You're discounting the fact that spells are implicitly time-boxed. A spell can't do damage after its effect is done. Your statement includes no such understood time-boxing other than what one would basically infer from natural conversation (i.e. just once on your next meeting). This isn't a valid comparison.
You're discounting the fact that spells are implicitly time-boxed. A spell can't do damage after its effect is done. Your statement includes no such understood time-boxing other than what one would basically infer from natural conversation (i.e. just once on your next meeting). This isn't a valid comparison."When a creature takes damage"
This can be interpreted a couple of ways. When could be the equivalent of whenever, which would indicate that each time a creature takes damage they make the save. It could instead though be the equivalent of 'if a creature takes damage' or 'once a creature takes damage.'
Consider this sentence: When I see you I'll give you $5.00.
A reasonable person would expect that the next time they saw that person, they would get the money (well, if the person is trustworthy anyway) but not that they would get 5.00 each time they saw that person in the future, or that playing peek-a-boo with them was a sure fire path to fame and fortune.
"When I see you in the next week I'll give you $5.00." Works exactly the same.
Basically, this interpretation would be that Daze causes a specific effect: make a save or be dazed. 'When' tells you what condition will cause that effect to happen, but doesn't change that it is a single effect that only happens once.
As I said, the other interpretation is valid english too. "When I see her I smile" would properly be interpreted as "Whenever I see her" something that always happens based on the condition.
I lean toward the 'one and done' interpretation for this feat, largely because the daze effect has a duration baked in, so it doesn't make much sense to me that it would be multiple dazes with durations, but there isn't any definitive proof in the text that one reading or the other is correct.