Thank you for demonstrating the speciousness of the argument.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 not answering my question.....
Wall of iron is also a conjuration (creation) spell. It can also cause damage. Can I make a dazing wall of iron?
Why is it that every time this topic comes up it seems like spells such as fireball are deemed to do damage while spells like greater magic weapon aren't? Does fireball not create a "fire ball" that then does damage? How can you justify that the "fire ball" is magic while things like weapon enhancements are not?
My point is ALL spells of this nature utilize third party means to affect their surroundings. The only difference between these spells is the timing in which that damage takes place.
Does flame arrow damage creatures? Can I cast a dazing flame arrow which makes creatures that take the extra damage when the projectiles hit save for daze?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it that every time this topic comes up it seems like spells such as fireball are deemed to do damage while spells like greater magic weapon aren't? Does fireball not create a "fire ball" that then does damage? How can you justify that the "fire ball" is magic while things like weapon enhancements are not?
My point is ALL spells of this nature utilize third party means to affect their surroundings. The only difference between these spells is the timing in which that damage takes place.
You seriously believe Dazing Magic Weapon is legal?
I've got to say, that beats out even Dazing Major Creation on the ridiculousness scale.
My rule of thumb is that if the damage die appears in the spell description, and the damage is done immediately as the spell is cast, or as a result of an attack roll that occurs directly as a result of the spell, it's damage from the spell. If the spell creates an effect and, depending on other rolls or circumstances, damage is done from the effect, then it's not damage from the spell. In-between cases are up for argument.
So, acid arrow: dazing works.
Corrosive touch: dazing works
Acid pit: dazing doesn't work.
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.
An artificial and arbitrary distinction. The called stones are at least magical enough to disappear at the end of the spell's duration. In any case, it would still be a terrible way to decide whether Dazing Spell should work, as there are examples that would work when they shouldn't and examples that shouldn't work when they should.
An artificial and arbitrary distinction. The called stones are at least magical enough to disappear at the end of the spell's duration. In any case, it would still be a terrible way to decide whether Dazing Spell should work, as there are examples that would work when they shouldn't and examples that shouldn't work when they should.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.
It's not arbitrary in the slightest - one allows SR and the other doesn't. One is magical and the other isn't. It's really very simple.
My rule of thumb is that if the damage die appears in the spell description, and the damage is done immediately as the spell is cast, or as a result of an attack roll that occurs directly as a result of the spell, it's damage from the spell. If the spell creates an effect and, depending on other rolls or circumstances, damage is done from the effect, then it's not damage from the spell. In-between cases are up for argument.
So, acid arrow: dazing works.
Corrosive touch: dazing works
Acid pit: dazing doesn't work.
How about fiery shuriken? Chill touch (multiple rounds)?
It's not arbitrary in the slightest - one allows SR and the other doesn't. One is magical and the other isn't. It's really very simple.An artificial and arbitrary distinction. The called stones are at least magical enough to disappear at the end of the spell's duration. In any case, it would still be a terrible way to decide whether Dazing Spell should work, as there are examples that would work when they shouldn't and examples that shouldn't work when they should.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.
Exactly my point. SR is allowed or disallowed in a mostly arbitrary fashion, not because it actually matches up with any in-game principles.
It doesn't make logical sense to me.
However, I do like the belief that any damage dealt by a spell, which doesn't allow for SR, can't have dazing spell applied to it. It seems to cover all the bases without specifically prohibiting any schools of magic. It seems like the best way to solve the issue.
I agree its one of the better solutions I've seen for it. Its not perfect, but it at least mostly fixes the largest abusers of dazing.
How about fiery shuriken? Chill touch (multiple rounds)?
Well, yeah, the rule isn't complete as I stated it. It's more of an "I know it when I see it" kind of thing because it's just for my own home play. If I were GMing in PFS I'd feel it necessary to be rather permissive about it beause the wording of the feat is rather wide in its implications.
There isn't any clear rationale to say that Spiritual weapon doesn't work with Dazing, acid arrow does, multiple chill touches do, and firey shuriken doesn't (these are my personal inclinations). In PFS play I would feel obligated to accept all of these situations, even if I thought they possessed a distinct eau de limburger. Ruling that only spells with SR can have Dazing feels like GM overreach to me. I don't see that as being a clear consequence of the text, and I hope people in this thread are discussing a possible future errata or houserule in a tangent, rather than arguing that the SR interpretation is in fact the RAI. (I must admit I've rather lost the thread of the discussion going on.)
I believe that current rules do not allow Dazing Spell to be used with Major Creation, or Stone Call, or Acid Arrow. It only applies when the spell itself (not a mundane effect of the spell) does damage. This is an FAQ situation rather than errata, because the rule already exists, it is just not super clear.
Incidentally, AFAIK every spell that does damage directly allows SR.
Since a number of people still consider it unclear or discretionary which spells qualify to be Dazing, please FAQ the post below.
| 20 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does a spell such as Stone Call, Acid Arrow, Aqueous Orb, or Spiritual Weapon, that does damage by creating an object, qualify for use with the Dazing Spell feat?
Rufus, please add the acid splash/arrow/fog spells in your question, as those are the most common SR:no spells which people will say "directly deal damage".
Aren't Acid Arrow and Stone Call on the same ground in that respect?
I could add it, but it seems somewhat redundant.
Stone call targets an area, while acid splash/arrow are an ranged attack roll. I agree with undone that acid arrow, spiritual weapon, flaming sphere, and aqueous orb are the oddest contenders.
Ok, I added Acid Arrow. Please mark it as FAQ!
Please include Spiritual Weapon in the question if it's not too late. This spell allows SR and is evocation but feels like it shouldn't qualify for Dazing IMO.
Added Spiritual Weapon by popular request.
Please FAQ it!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Yeah, have to agree with this. It comes across as "I do not like the current RAW of dazing spell, so I will bend, twist, and manipulate the text as much as possible to try and justify any nerfs I can think of." If it bugs you that much, just house-rule it.
Yeah, have to agree with this. It comes across as "I do not like the current RAW of dazing spell, so I will bend, twist, and manipulate the text as much as possible to try and justify any nerfs I can think of." If it bugs you that much, just house-rule it.
I'm curious what you think RAW is on this issue. You think Dazing Magic Weapon is a legal spell by RAW?
Do you think dazing aqueous orb is? I do. It's nearly identical to flaming sphere but with some additional effects and bigger. It makes little sense to me that spiritual weapon and flaming sphere would work but aqueous orb and acid arrow would not.Yeah, have to agree with this. It comes across as "I do not like the current RAW of dazing spell, so I will bend, twist, and manipulate the text as much as possible to try and justify any nerfs I can think of." If it bugs you that much, just house-rule it.I'm curious what you think RAW is on this issue. You think Dazing Magic Weapon is a legal spell by RAW?
I do not think Dazing Aqueous Orb is legal by RAW, but that's why we're asking for an FAQ. I think if Dazing Aqueous Orb and Dazing Acid Arrow are legal, then you're also forced to concede that Dazing Major Creation is also legal. And I think that would be very very silly.
So then by raw dazing sun metal is legal.
With Sun Metal, the weapon itself is doing the damage, not the spell. So no, it doesn't work with Dazing Spell.
(Also, if I understand correctly, someone hit with a Sun Metal weapon does not get a save or SR, the save and SR are made on behalf of the object itself, such as if you cast it on an intelligent magic weapon.)
Yeah, have to agree with this. It comes across as "I do not like the current RAW of dazing spell, so I will bend, twist, and manipulate the text as much as possible to try and justify any nerfs I can think of." If it bugs you that much, just house-rule it.I'm curious what you think RAW is on this issue. You think Dazing Magic Weapon is a legal spell by RAW?
No, but technically dazing spiritual weapon is. But, sometimes, RAW is stupid. I sure as hell don't play it that way. Very few people would.
Where we all differ is where the line is drawn between a damaging spell and a spell that incidentally causes damage.
What about flame blade/divine flame blade (name escapes me) They have SR apply. That's my problem with the SR rule.
We are approximately half a henderson off the rails.
Holy Derailing Threads Batman!
Flame blade is evocation, which everyone seems to agree count for dazing.
Dazing Spiritual weapon seems perfectly fine to me. At least it has to try to hit. Unlike dazing magic missile.
Yeah, have to agree with this. It comes across as "I do not like the current RAW of dazing spell, so I will bend, twist, and manipulate the text as much as possible to try and justify any nerfs I can think of." If it bugs you that much, just house-rule it.I'm curious what you think RAW is on this issue. You think Dazing Magic Weapon is a legal spell by RAW?No, but technically dazing spiritual weapon is. But, sometimes, RAW is stupid. I sure as hell don't play it that way. Very few people would.
Where we all differ is where the line is drawn between a damaging spell and a spell that incidentally causes damage.
Yeah, RAW Dazing spell can really throw off game balance. Nonetheless, one needs to be clear on what the RAW is, if only to make sure that your house-rules are clearly outlined to fix it.
RAW's only requirement to qualify for Dazing Spell is that the spell causes damage to its target. It's "When a creature takes damage from this spell..." not, "When a creature takes damage from this spell, and that spell is subject to spell resistance..." or "When a creature takes damage from this evocation spell..." Those are both fine house-rules if you want to dazing spell a bit more limited in scope, but they are house rules.
Incidentally, since feat doesn't specify that the spell has to cause HP damage, just damage in general, there's a case to be made for ability damage qualifying as well.
Yeah, RAW Dazing spell can really throw off game balance. Nonetheless, one needs to be clear on what the RAW is, if only to make sure that your house-rules are clearly outlined to fix it.
RAW's only requirement to qualify for Dazing Spell is that the spell causes damage to its target. It's "When a creature takes damage from this spell..." not, "When a creature takes damage from this spell, and that spell is subject to spell resistance..." or "When a creature takes damage from this evocation spell..." Those are both fine house-rules if you want to dazing spell a bit more limited in scope, but they are house rules.
Incidentally, since feat doesn't specify that the spell has to cause HP damage, just damage in general, there's a case to be made for ability damage qualifying as well.
Would you allow a dazing summon monster?
Would you allow a dazing summon monster?Yeah, RAW Dazing spell can really throw off game balance. Nonetheless, one needs to be clear on what the RAW is, if only to make sure that your house-rules are clearly outlined to fix it.
RAW's only requirement to qualify for Dazing Spell is that the spell causes damage to its target. It's "When a creature takes damage from this spell..." not, "When a creature takes damage from this spell, and that spell is subject to spell resistance..." or "When a creature takes damage from this evocation spell..." Those are both fine house-rules if you want to dazing spell a bit more limited in scope, but they are house rules.
Incidentally, since feat doesn't specify that the spell has to cause HP damage, just damage in general, there's a case to be made for ability damage qualifying as well.
Summon Monster does not say that it causes damage. Ergo, it does not qualify. Nor does any other spell that makes no mention of damage in its spell effects.
I was referring to the order of progression one usually sees with such conditions (e.g. shaken>frightened>panicked); If you house ruled that daze was a lesser form of stun, which path that I listed would you take? You can also pick other options if you feel they better fit the bill.
And if those are greater/lesser than signs (in the order of effectiveness part), stunned is definitely better than dazed. I would disagree on which is easiest to apply since there are quite a few things that can apply each.
They are not connected in that way by the rules. They are each their own conditions and not connected like the fear conditions are.
Summon Monster does not say that it causes damage. Ergo, it does not qualify. Nor does any other spell that makes no mention of damage in its spell effects.
So you would allow Dazing Magic Weapon then?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chengar, you would also allow Dazing Swarm of Fangs? That also mentions damage in its spell effects.
Chengar, you would also allow Dazing Swarm of Fangs? That also mentions damage in its spell effects.
There are people who wouldn't allow Dazing Swarm of Fangs?
Chengar, you would also allow Dazing Swarm of Fangs? That also mentions damage in its spell effects.There are people who wouldn't allow Dazing Swarm of Fangs?
It's a Conjuration (summoning) spell. It makes zero sense to me to allow Dazing Swarm of Fangs but not Dazing Summon Swarm. Yet, by Chengar's criterion of "mentioning damage in the spell effects" Dazing Swarm of Fangs is a go but Dazing Summon Swarm is a no-go.
Summon Monster does not say that it causes damage. Ergo, it does not qualify. Nor does any other spell that makes no mention of damage in its spell effects.Would you allow a dazing summon monster?Yeah, RAW Dazing spell can really throw off game balance. Nonetheless, one needs to be clear on what the RAW is, if only to make sure that your house-rules are clearly outlined to fix it.
RAW's only requirement to qualify for Dazing Spell is that the spell causes damage to its target. It's "When a creature takes damage from this spell..." not, "When a creature takes damage from this spell, and that spell is subject to spell resistance..." or "When a creature takes damage from this evocation spell..." Those are both fine house-rules if you want to dazing spell a bit more limited in scope, but they are house rules.
Incidentally, since feat doesn't specify that the spell has to cause HP damage, just damage in general, there's a case to be made for ability damage qualifying as well.
Dazing flame arrow then? Dazing icicle dagger?
Even better than the wizards spells are some druid ones how about a dazing call lighting?
Dazing chill metal, frostbite, heat metal?
It's a Conjuration (summoning) spell. It makes zero sense to me to allow Dazing Swarm of Fangs but not Dazing Summon Swarm. Yet, by Chengar's criterion of "mentioning damage in the spell effects" Dazing Swarm of Fangs is a go but Dazing Summon Swarm is a no-go.Chengar, you would also allow Dazing Swarm of Fangs? That also mentions damage in its spell effects.There are people who wouldn't allow Dazing Swarm of Fangs?
It's not my criteria, the Dazing Spell's If there is any other requirement listed in the feat other than "inflicts damage" then I would love to see it pointed out.
Personally, I'd house rule the hell out of it if anyone wanted to use it in a game I was running.
The spell effect of Spiritual weapon is 'magic weapon of force' which does damage directly. There seems to be a consensus in this thread, however, that Spiritual weapon should not work with Dazing spell.