The listed requirement is the spell must do damage.
What this means is simple. If the spell effect does not do damage or does damage indirectly (Bull strength, summon monster, magic weapon) it doesn't count. It must be directly doing damage.
If it was simple, this thread would me much shorter. : )
There's no listed requirement that the damage must be dealt "directly", and even if there was, the division between "directly" and "indirectly" in this case is pretty blurry.
Just to remind everyone, please FAQ this post as the issue remains quite controversial.
The listed requirement is the spell must do damage.
What this means is simple. If the spell effect does not do damage or does damage indirectly (Bull strength, summon monster, magic weapon) it doesn't count. It must be directly doing damage.
Acid Arrow is doing damage indirectly.
The damage is not magic in any way, the damage is from mundane acid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This directly/indirectly stuff is nonsense. Dazing spell only cares if the spell deals damage. Not if "magic" deals the damage. If I cast Acid Arrow, it will cause damage. This is different from say Summon Monster, where merely casting Summon Monster causes no damage. This also holds true for Wall of Iron; merely casting it does not cause damage. Swarm of Fangs however, does cause damage merely by being cast.
I don't see anything really controversial here. Unless you intend to tell me that the person who casts Acid Arrow did not cast a damage dealing spell.
|
Just to remind everyone, please FAQ this post as the issue remains quite controversial.
You should actually make a new thread with this question.
This directly/indirectly stuff is nonsense. Dazing spell only cares if the spell deals damage. Not if "magic" deals the damage. If I cast Acid Arrow, it will cause damage. This is different from say Summon Monster, where merely casting Summon Monster causes no damage. This also holds true for Wall of Iron; merely casting it does not cause damage. Swarm of Fangs however, does cause damage merely by being cast.
I don't see anything really controversial here. Unless you intend to tell me that the person who casts Acid Arrow did not cast a damage dealing spell.
But you see, they didn't cast a spell that deals damage, they cast a spell that creates acid, as per the [creation] rider, and that acid is what deals damage.
I'm okay with asking for an FAQ, but this really does seem like an attempt to twist wording to the point where you find a problem to try and nerf a feat, especially when it comes to the acid attack type spells.
This directly/indirectly stuff is nonsense. Dazing spell only cares if the spell deals damage. Not if "magic" deals the damage. If I cast Acid Arrow, it will cause damage. This is different from say Summon Monster, where merely casting Summon Monster causes no damage. This also holds true for Wall of Iron; merely casting it does not cause damage. Swarm of Fangs however, does cause damage merely by being cast.
I don't see anything really controversial here. Unless you intend to tell me that the person who casts Acid Arrow did not cast a damage dealing spell.
But you see, they didn't cast a spell that deals damage, they cast a spell that creates acid, as per the [creation] rider, and that acid is what deals damage.
I'm okay with asking for an FAQ, but this really does seem like an attempt to twist wording to the point where you find a problem to try and nerf a feat, especially when it comes to the acid attack type spells.
The problem, is then with the same reasoning, it carries over to summon spells. they didn't cast a spell that deals damage, they cast a spell that summons a monster, as per the [summoning] rider, and that monster is what deals damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well as long as we're playing the "take logic to the absurd to show the fallacy game," allow me to apply a few of my own. Remember, we're working under the logic that the acid doing the damage in the spell acid arrow is a separate effect from the spell itself.
Would maximized spell and empowered spell no longer work with acid arrow, either.
All variable, numeric effects of a spell modified by this feat are maximized. Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables.
Nope. All that those variable, numeric effect (damage) belongs to the acid, not the spell. The spell always creates the effect of acid. Nothing variable or numeric about that.
Replace "maximized" with " increased by half including bonuses to those dice rolls" and the same logic applies to empowered.
Persistent Spell doesn't work with Acidic Spray anymore. Neither would widen, lingering, thundering, sickening, merciful, intensified, jinxed, bouncing, extend, or enlarge. Those all effect spells' effects, not the effects' effects.
The listed requirement is the spell must do damage.
What this means is simple. If the spell effect does not do damage or does damage indirectly (Bull strength, summon monster, magic weapon) it doesn't count. It must be directly doing damage.
Acid Arrow is doing damage indirectly.
The damage is not magic in any way, the damage is from mundane acid.
Well its like saying that hitting brimorak with greatsword will not damage me because i do not damage it, but my sword does. There is no "magic" damage in pathfinder as far as i know - but there is "fire" and "acid" damage. So throwing ball of acid makes spell do damage just as much as throwing bat guano makes spell do damage.
I now wonder if that logic makes Ice Spear and Acid Splash go thru Antimagic Field because they are mundane objects? I would not rule so, but to each their own.
Acid Splash can hit a target inside an Anti-Magic Field, for example.
Acid Splash can hit a target inside an Anti-Magic Field, for example.
Oh, i see your point, since its duration is "instantaneous", yet it "disappears after 1 round".
Instantaneous conjuration effects ignore AMF but neither Ice Spear nor Acid Arrow count as they both have a duration.Actually I think "Does it work in an AMF" and "Does it have SR" is a good benchmark for what doesnt' work with dazing spell.
I think "What doesn't work with Maximize Spell to maximize damage dice." is the more accurate benchmark. I feel Squirrel_Dude has the right of why saying Instantaneous Conjurations can't be Dazing spells is a load of bunk.
|
This directly or indirectly dealing damage thing is just silly. Acid Arrow deals damage as a direct result of the action spent to cast the spell. Therefore it is directly dealing damage.
Otherwise you could question whether or not a barbarian ever deals damage directly because it's technically his greataxe doing the damage not him. That's just nonsense.
This directly or indirectly dealing damage thing is just silly. Acid Arrow deals damage as a direct result of the action spent to cast the spell. Therefore it is directly dealing damage.
Otherwise you could question whether or not a barbarian ever deals damage directly because it's technically his greataxe doing the damage not him. That's just nonsense.
Have to agree here. The logic that bars acid arrow can easily be applied to every other damage spell in the game. "Fireball doesn't do damage, it just creates a fireball, and that does the damage." "Magic Missile doesn't do damage, it just creates magic missiles, and then they do the actual damage."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, the idea of dazing someone who is inside an anti-magic field with Dazing Heightened Acid Splash seems silly to me. But I guess some people consider that to be totally fine?
Have to agree here. The logic that bars acid arrow can easily be applied to every other damage spell in the game. "Fireball doesn't do damage, it just creates a fireball, and that does the damage." "Magic Missile doesn't do damage, it just creates magic missiles, and then they do the actual damage."
The logic is that magical damage is magical and it can daze (like a Fireball or Magic Missile.) Mundane damage is mundane and thus it is not the spell itself doing damage (like Acid Splash or Summon Nature's Ally or Major Creation.)
|
|
Personally, the idea of dazing someone who is inside an anti-magic field with Dazing Heightened Acid Splash seems silly to me. But I guess some people consider that to be totally fine?
Have to agree here. The logic that bars acid arrow can easily be applied to every other damage spell in the game. "Fireball doesn't do damage, it just creates a fireball, and that does the damage." "Magic Missile doesn't do damage, it just creates magic missiles, and then they do the actual damage."The logic is that magical damage is magical and it can daze (like a Fireball or Magic Missile.) Mundane damage is mundane and thus it is not the spell itself doing damage (like Acid Splash or Summon Nature's Ally or Major Creation.)
And where exactly does it say that it is mundane damage rather than magical? Please quote.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And where exactly does it say that it is mundane damage rather than magical? Please quote.Personally, the idea of dazing someone who is inside an anti-magic field with Dazing Heightened Acid Splash seems silly to me. But I guess some people consider that to be totally fine?
Have to agree here. The logic that bars acid arrow can easily be applied to every other damage spell in the game. "Fireball doesn't do damage, it just creates a fireball, and that does the damage." "Magic Missile doesn't do damage, it just creates magic missiles, and then they do the actual damage."The logic is that magical damage is magical and it can daze (like a Fireball or Magic Missile.) Mundane damage is mundane and thus it is not the spell itself doing damage (like Acid Splash or Summon Nature's Ally or Major Creation.)
SR does not apply to Acid Arrow etc. If it were magical damage, it would allow SR.
SR does not apply to Acid Arrow etc. If it were magical damage, it would allow SR.And where exactly does it say that it is mundane damage rather than magical? Please quote.Personally, the idea of dazing someone who is inside an anti-magic field with Dazing Heightened Acid Splash seems silly to me. But I guess some people consider that to be totally fine?
Have to agree here. The logic that bars acid arrow can easily be applied to every other damage spell in the game. "Fireball doesn't do damage, it just creates a fireball, and that does the damage." "Magic Missile doesn't do damage, it just creates magic missiles, and then they do the actual damage."The logic is that magical damage is magical and it can daze (like a Fireball or Magic Missile.) Mundane damage is mundane and thus it is not the spell itself doing damage (like Acid Splash or Summon Nature's Ally or Major Creation.)
Does an acid arrow deal full damage to a creature with DR10/magic?
SR does not apply to Acid Arrow etc. If it were magical damage, it would allow SR.
Dazing spell requires a target take damage from a spell, not magical damage, so what type of damage dealt to the target is irrelevant.
Does an acid arrow deal full damage to a creature with DR10/magic?
SR does not apply to Acid Arrow etc. If it were magical damage, it would allow SR.
I see the point you're trying to make, but must remind you that energy damage bypasses DR automatically. It could be DR ∞/epic and acid splash would still get past it.
SR does not apply to Acid Arrow etc. If it were magical damage, it would allow SR.Dazing spell requires a target take damage from a spell, not magical damage, so what type of damage dealt to the target is irrelevant.
So you think Dazing Summon Nature's Ally is legal, then?
I agree that the logic is sound but RAW doesn't actually support that. There is no written difference between mundane and magical energy damage. It can certainly be inferred from the logic you presented, but the rules don't actually support it.
Seconding this. Nothing in the rules says that "SR: No" spells do not count as damage-dealing spells, or that their damage is only inflicted indirectly.
|
|
So you think Dazing Summon Nature's Ally is legal, then?SR does not apply to Acid Arrow etc. If it were magical damage, it would allow SR.Dazing spell requires a target take damage from a spell, not magical damage, so what type of damage dealt to the target is irrelevant.
Yes.
Summoned creatures are spell effects (they can be dispelled and wink out in an antimagic field), that are capable of dealing damage and therefore meet the qualifications of Dazing Spell.That being said no sane GM is going to allow a summoned monster to daze on every hit and will either allow a daze only on the first successful hit (this is how I do it) or nix it entirely.
So you think Dazing Summon Nature's Ally is legal, then?SR does not apply to Acid Arrow etc. If it were magical damage, it would allow SR.Dazing spell requires a target take damage from a spell, not magical damage, so what type of damage dealt to the target is irrelevant.
Do you not allow maximized or empowered acid arrow?
|
|
So you think Dazing Summon Nature's Ally is legal, then?SR does not apply to Acid Arrow etc. If it were magical damage, it would allow SR.Dazing spell requires a target take damage from a spell, not magical damage, so what type of damage dealt to the target is irrelevant.
Yes.
Summoned creatures are spell effects (they can be dispelled and wink out in an antimagic field), that are capable of dealing damage and therefore meet the qualifications of Dazing Spell.
That being said no sane GM is going to allow a summoned monster to daze on every hit and will either allow a daze only on the first successful hit (this is how I do it) or nix it entirely.No "sane GM" running a "PFS-legal" game is going to have any choice BUT to allow a Dazing Spell-affected Summoned creature to daze on every hit. It's RAW, with no errata (that I'm aware of), and it meets all of the requirements. This would mean, for example, that if a Dazing Summon Monster IV spell conjures 3 Small Fire Elementals, it would mean that each of those Elementals would daze an opponent upon inflicting damage...EVEN BURN DAMAGE.
Doesn't seem very logical, but then, logic was CLEARLY NEVER a design consideration (...and when dealing with a game that includes dragons, zombies, demons, and angels, WHY WOULD IT?)
Technically, no, the wording is just ambiguous enough that even a PFS GM (which wasn't part of the discussion, but since you brought it up as a rebuttal to what I said I'm forced to acknowledge it) can interpret "When a creature takes damage from this spell" to mean only the first time rather than every time.
Ambiguity always favors balance as determined by the GM, even in PFS.
So you think Dazing Summon Nature's Ally is legal, then?SR does not apply to Acid Arrow etc. If it were magical damage, it would allow SR.Dazing spell requires a target take damage from a spell, not magical damage, so what type of damage dealt to the target is irrelevant.
Yes.
Summoned creatures are spell effects (they can be dispelled and wink out in an antimagic field), that are capable of dealing damage and therefore meet the qualifications of Dazing Spell.
That being said no sane GM is going to allow a summoned monster to daze on every hit and will either allow a daze only on the first successful hit (this is how I do it) or nix it entirely.No "sane GM" running a "PFS-legal" game is going to have any choice BUT to allow a Dazing Spell-affected Summoned creature to daze on every hit. It's RAW, with no errata (that I'm aware of), and it meets all of the requirements. This would mean, for example, that if a Dazing Summon Monster IV spell conjures 3 Small Fire Elementals, it would mean that each of those Elementals would daze an opponent upon inflicting damage...EVEN BURN DAMAGE.
Doesn't seem very logical, but then, logic was CLEARLY NEVER a design consideration (...and when dealing with a game that includes dragons, zombies, demons, and angels, WHY WOULD IT?)
Technically, no, the wording is just ambiguous enough that even a PFS GM (which wasn't part of the discussion, but since you brought it up as a rebuttal to what I said I'm forced to acknowledge it) can interpret "When a creature takes damage from this spell" to mean only the first time rather than every time.
Ambiguity always favors balance as determined by the GM, even in PFS.
No they can't. "When they take damage.." means "When they take damage...". Did you take damage? Then guess what? According to proper English "When they take damage..." is triggered.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm losing track of who thinks what is legal, so let's make a list. Various criteria have been proposed - does it allow SR, does it mention damage in the description, which subschool of magic it's from, so I'll try to provide those relevant details.
1) Dazing Heightened Acid Splash or Dazing Clashing Rocks - note: these could hit someone inside an anti-magic field as they are instantaneous conjuration (creation) spells
2) Dazing Acid Arrow - note: a conjuration (creation) spell with no SR that mentions damage
3) Dazing Mage's Faithful Hound - note: a conjuration (creation) with no SR that makes a creature, mentions damage
4) Dazing Summon Nature's Ally - note: a conjuration (summoning) spell with no SR that doesn't mention damage
5) Dazing Swarm of Fangs - note: a conjuration (summoning) with no SR that makes a swarm, mentions damage
6) Dazing Spiritual Weapon - note: an evocation with SR that makes a creature, mentions damage
7) Dazing Magic Weapon - note: a transmutation allowing SR only on the object that mentions damage
8) Dazing Major Creation - note: a conjuration (creation) that creates a weapon, no SR, does not mention damage
Which of these do you consider legal, and why?
RumpinRufus:
Would you allow the applicaton of burning spell metamagic to an acid arrow or acid fog? The most relevant text:
"The acid or fire effects of the affected spell adhere to the creature, causing more damage the next round. When a creature takes acid or fire damage from the affected spell, that creature takes damage equal to 2x the spell’s actual level at the start of its next turn. The damage is acid or fire, as determined by the spell’s descriptor. If a burning spell has both the fire and acid descriptor, the caster chooses what kind of damage is dealt by the burning spell effect."
By your ruling, you could not apply this to acid arrow.
Secondly, how do you feel about conjuration [creation] spells with an instantaneous duration that have SR:YES? How does that work in your framework? Isn't it a direct contradiction of your logic, considering that conjuration [creation] spells follow the following rules text:
"If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence."
For an example, see acidic spray, corrosive touch, conjure deadfall, etc etc
...direct quote to follow...
"When a creature takes damage from this spell, they become dazed for a number of rounds equal to the original level of the spell."
...note here that NO DAMAGE TYPE, NOR SPELL TYPE IS SPECIFIED! No distinction is made between energy damage or mundane damage, and no magical school (Conjuration, Abjuration, Evocation, etc.) is specified, either. The ABSOLUTELY ONLY DISTINCTION is as follows: "Spells that do not inflict damage do not benefit from this feat."
So, no, a Cure spell cannot benefit from this feat, as they HEAL damage, rather than deal it (not even against Undead, as they are immune to the Dazed condition)
Undead are not immmune to the dazed condition. No creature type in the book is. There might be a creature that specifically has immunity to it, but there is no creature type that is immune to it.
To get into this subtopic, if the spell directly damages you then you can be dazed by it. Acid arrow and magic missile are direct damage from a spell. If the spell creates a construct(not creature type) that does damage on its own such as a summoned monster or calls a creature then you do not have to worry about being dazed.
Per RAW I do agree that the acid arrow is not actually a spell, but a spell creation which is why it can bypass an antimagic field. However since it(damage from the acid arrow) can be affected by empower or maximize then it can be affected by dazing metamagic, and that is also RAI, IMHO. I would say the spell creates a dazing arrow of acid. If your magic can make stronger acid through a metamagic feat I see no reason why it can't make acid that dazes you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm losing track of who thinks what is legal, so let's make a list. Various criteria have been proposed - does it allow SR, does it mention damage in the description, which subschool of magic it's from, so I'll try to provide those relevant details.
1) Dazing Heightened Acid Splash or Dazing Clashing Rocks
2) Dazing Acid Arrow
3) Dazing Mage's Faithful Hound
4) Dazing Summon Nature's Ally
5) Dazing Swarm of Fangs
6) Dazing Spiritual Weapon
7) Dazing Magic Weapon
8) Dazing Major CreationWhich of these do you consider legal, and why?
All of them. Seperating the damage effect of the acid from the spell that creates it breaks metamagic. As I see it, you are providing us with two options:
1. Allow dazing spell in many weird situations that don't make logical sense. AKA. Break logic.
2. Don't allow dazing spell on acid arrow, and following that logic, don't allow almost any metamagic on acid arrow. Aka: Break all metamagic.
Given the two options, considering that Pathfinder doesn't make much logical sense in the first place, I'll choose to break logic every time.
Given the two options, considering that Pathfinder doesn't make much logical sense in the first place, I'll choose to break logic every time.
I'd put game balance first (probably by banning Dazing spell). Allowing Dazing Summonings sounds like a bad idea.
Also, I don't think 'damage not caused by the spell itself' breaks all metamagic since the rest have different wording: "All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by half including bonuses to those dice rolls."
Given the two options, considering that Pathfinder doesn't make much logical sense in the first place, I'll choose to break logic every time.I'd put game balance first (probably by banning Dazing spell). Allowing Dazing Summonings sounds like a bad idea.
Also, I don't think 'damage not caused by the spell itself' breaks all metamagic since the rest have different wording: "All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by half including bonuses to those dice rolls."
Yeah, that's not how it would work under the proposed interpretation. As we currently sit, there are two interpretations of the rule:
1. The acid damage caused by acid arrow is seperate from the spell itself. This means that the effect of damage is no longer part of the spell. As such, acid arrow has no "variable, numeric effects" that you can apply maximize or empowered spell to, any more than a flask of acid would. The variable, numeric effect is damage, and that is now an effect of the acid created, not the spell.
That's before we get to metamagic feats with the exact same wording as dazing spell. As pointed out above, Burning spell also wouldn't work anymore. Neither would Sickening or Thundering Spell.
2. Anything that causes damage from the result of the spell can daze a target. Magic weapon hitting and enemy? Yes. An iron wall falling on an enemy? Yes. Summoned monsters? Yes.
RumpinRufus made this a black and white discussion by constantly throwing out "but then you have to allow dazing magic weapon," whenever someone objected to his point, or tried to take the middle ground on the issue. Fine. Now he gets the black and white decision of either breaking metamagic because he's separated spells from their effects or dealing with an overpowered feat being more overpowered.
|
|
I'm losing track of who thinks what is legal, so let's make a list. Various criteria have been proposed - does it allow SR, does it mention damage in the description, which subschool of magic it's from, so I'll try to provide those relevant details.
1) Dazing Heightened Acid Splash or Dazing Clashing Rocks - note: these could hit someone inside an anti-magic field as they are instantaneous conjuration (creation) spells
2) Dazing Acid Arrow - note: a conjuration (creation) spell with no SR that mentions damage
3) Dazing Mage's Faithful Hound - note: a conjuration (creation) with no SR that makes a creature, mentions damage
4) Dazing Summon Nature's Ally - note: a conjuration (summoning) spell with no SR that doesn't mention damage
5) Dazing Swarm of Fangs - note: a conjuration (summoning) with no SR that makes a swarm, mentions damage
6) Dazing Spiritual Weapon - note: an evocation with SR that makes a creature, mentions damage
7) Dazing Magic Weapon - note: a transmutation allowing SR only on the object that mentions damage
8) Dazing Major Creation - note: a conjuration (creation) that creates a weapon, no SR, does not mention damage
Which of these do you consider legal, and why?
1) Yes because they are spells that do damage in their description and therefore qualify for Dazing Spell.
2) Yes because it is a spell that does damage in its description and therefore qualifies for Dazing Spell.
3) Yes because it is a spell that does damage in its description and therefore qualifies for Dazing Spell.
4) Yes because it is a spell that does damage in its indirect description (since refering other parts of the book and charts is technically part of its description) and is intended for dealing damage it therefore qualifies for Dazing Spell.
5) Yes because it is a spell that does damage in its description and therefore qualifies for Dazing Spell.
6) Yes because it is a spell that does damage in its description and therefore qualifies for Dazing Spell.
7) Interesting. I hadn't considered this one. I may end up changing my mind about it but for now I'll say Yes because it is a spell that does damage in its description and therefore qualifies for Dazing Spell.
8) No. Since this spell does not deal damage, nor is it even intended to do damage it cannot qualify.
Now, given all this, I still firmly believe that Dazing Spell was meant to only trigger once per spell, as in the first time it does damage rather than everytime. The wording is just barely ambiguous enough to allow this balanced interpretation.
1) Dazing Heightened Acid Splash or Dazing Clashing Rocks - note: these could hit someone inside an anti-magic field as they
Nothing in the rules supports this claim. Antimagic Field specifically says that any spell effect is suppressed in the area. What is the effect of acid splash? It is an orb of acid. So the effect, i.e. orb of acid, winks out when entering the field.
|
|
1) Dazing Heightened Acid Splash or Dazing Clashing Rocks - note: these could hit someone inside an anti-magic field as theyNothing in the rules supports this claim. Antimagic Field specifically says that any spell effect is suppressed in the area. What is the effect of acid splash? It is an orb of acid. So the effect, i.e. orb of acid, winks out when entering the field.
"The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result."
^Gotta read the whole spell.