Can Oozes be dazed?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 149 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Simple question, powerful condition. Doesn't make sense to me but I can't see anything preventing it.


Most daze effects are mind-affecting, which oozes are immune to.

And even some daze effects that aren't explicitly listed as mind-affecting, may reasonably be ruled to be mind-affecting by your GM (I'm looking at you, Cape of Feinting.)

Dark Archive

There are a fair number of fortitude based dazes out there and those, yep, you absolutely could land on an ooze. Weird I know, I always thought oozes should have gotten the "immunity to Fort saving effects" like Undead have.


The dazed condition seems to be a weaker form of the stunned condition. Since oozes are immune to "stunning," I think most GM's would rule that they could not be dazed, even if the daze effect isn't mind affecting.


No they are not. They're immune to mind-affecting though, which covers most dazes. Any other rule on this would be a house rule.


Agreed ("No they are not"), although I would be interested to see the case where a dazed creature became so dazed he was stunned.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

^Thats also a good point to counter Avoron's. Fatigued is a weaker form of exhaustion because fatigue can turn into exhaustion. There are no conditions in which dazed turns into stunned, nor do the rules make any claim that daze is a weaker form of stunned, there for dazed is not a weaker form of stunned. They are similar, but they are not varrying strengths of the same condition.

Oozes are certainly not immune to daze, only mind-affects, which includes some dazes.


Oozes are not immune to daze in any way!
They are immune to stun effects which hinders no daze effects and then they are immune to mind affecting abilities which prevents some (perhaps most?) daze effects, but that doesn't confer total immunity to daze.


Nothing in the game is immune to the dazed condition, and dazed is not any form of stun. It is its own condition. That is one reason why dazing spell(metamagic feat) is so strong.


wraithstrike wrote:
Nothing in the game is immune to the dazed condition, and dazed is not any form of stun. It is its own condition. That is one reason why dazing spell(metamagic feat) is so strong.

Yes, as pointed out by one of my players, there seems to be nothing that is immune to the dazed condition which is one of the reasons why it is so powerful.

Of course, what I'm afraid of is that it will soon be, what I like to call, "over-exploited", so taken advantage of that it seems the designers may have let it slip through the cracks to become a very easily induced condition that will tip combat into stupidity.

I have a tendency as a DM to simply dismiss rules that don't seem to follow the sort of "Fantasy-Physics" (if that makes sense)of the setting and this one I find is... questionable.

Yes, I know dazed is not a lesser form of stun but balance would actually benefit if it was categorized as such IMO.


So Dazed>Stunned>Paralyzed or Staggered>Dazed>Stunned?


Iterman wrote:
So Dazed>Stunned>Paralyzed or Staggered>Dazed>Stunned?

In order of effectiveness if a save is failed--> paralyzed>stunned<dazed

However if you want to go by which is easier to apply it is likely dazed>stunned>paralyzed.


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.


By RAW nobody is immune to daze. In my game immunity to stun is also immunity to daze.

Dark Archive

I don't recommend treating Daze as a lesser form of stun. It's true that nothing in the game is immune to it directly but many many things are immune to it indirectly.
I'm not aware of any form of applying daze that does not either: 1) Require a Fort save or 2) be a mind affecting effect. So all undead, plants, and constructs are immune to all forms of daze. And vermin, and oozes are immune to MOST forms of Daze. That means that roughly half the printed creatures are immune to it already which is roughly the same amount as are immune to stun. But making un-stunnable creatures immune to it too you've pretty much just nerfed the effect into oblivion with only a handful of creatures ever being able to be hit by it.
So no, it's already balanced, no need to re(un)balance it.


That Crazy Alchemist wrote:

I don't recommend treating Daze as a lesser form of stun. It's true that nothing in the game is immune to it directly but many many things are immune to it indirectly.

I'm not aware of any form of applying daze that does not either: 1) Require a Fort save or 2) be a mind affecting effect. So all undead, plants, and constructs are immune to all forms of daze. And vermin, and oozes are immune to MOST forms of Daze. That means that roughly half the printed creatures are immune to it already which is roughly the same amount as are immune to stun. But making un-stunnable creatures immune to it too you've pretty much just nerfed the effect into oblivion with only a handful of creatures ever being able to be hit by it.
So no, it's already balanced, no need to re(un)balance it.

Dazing fireball. Is not mindaffecting and on a reflex save.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Aren't oozes also blind? That would make them immune to any effects based on light or vision.

I think there are still a few daze effects that could get through to them even with their other immunities.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cap. Darling wrote:
That Crazy Alchemist wrote:

I don't recommend treating Daze as a lesser form of stun. It's true that nothing in the game is immune to it directly but many many things are immune to it indirectly.

I'm not aware of any form of applying daze that does not either: 1) Require a Fort save or 2) be a mind affecting effect. So all undead, plants, and constructs are immune to all forms of daze. And vermin, and oozes are immune to MOST forms of Daze. That means that roughly half the printed creatures are immune to it already which is roughly the same amount as are immune to stun. But making un-stunnable creatures immune to it too you've pretty much just nerfed the effect into oblivion with only a handful of creatures ever being able to be hit by it.
So no, it's already balanced, no need to re(un)balance it.
Dazing fireball. Is not mindaffecting and on a reflex save.

True, forgot about that. I'd recommend nerfing THAT then rather than Daze as a whole if you have to nerf one of them. Perhaps making it a Fort save regardless of the spell it's riding on? Would make more sense then the way it's written anyway. Dazing Spell has always been kind of a cheesy abomination.


Someone should make a thread on this in the house rules forum. Given this is still going strong after Lifat and Wraithstrike gave the rules correct RAW answer 2 days ago this is obviously an issue multiple people really care to see addressed by a house rule in some form.


Speaking from a biological perspective, there are certainly circumstances (chemical or physical) that can have a dazing sort of effect on oozy-type creatures, such as amoebae, slime molds, etc.


Cap. Darling wrote:
Dazing fireball. Is not mindaffecting and on a reflex save.

Indeed, dazing spell is a terrible metamagc feat for the game and it goes well beyond fireball. Dazing Aqueous Orb is a mobile engine of death and destruction on the battlefield which can daze whole swathes of enemies and is SR: No. Dazing Ice Spears is similarly effective pin point dazing for when your allies are mixed in with the enemy. Dazing Black Tentacles is especially hilarious for forcing many saves over multiple turns and it targets Will, often the weakest save of many enemies.

It gets especially egregious at level 15 when Spell Perfection comes online and you may as well forget about saving even if using a spell which targets a strong save.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
Dazing fireball. Is not mindaffecting and on a reflex save.

Indeed, dazing spell is a terrible metamagc feat for the game and it goes well beyond fireball. Dazing Aqueous Orb is a mobile engine of death and destruction on the battlefield which can daze whole swathes of enemies and is SR: No. Dazing Ice Spears is similarly effective pin point dazing for when your allies are mixed in with the enemy. Dazing Black Tentacles is especially hilarious for forcing many saves over multiple turns and it targets Will, often the weakest save of many enemies.

It gets especially egregious at level 15 when Spell Perfection comes online and you may as well forget about saving even if using a spell which targets a strong save.

I don't believe you can make Dazing Aqueous Orb or Dazing Black Tentacles or Dazing Ice Spears, any more than you can make Dazing Summon Nature's Ally.

These are conjuration spells, so the spell is not doing any damage and hence it gets no benefit. You are creating or summoning something, and that thing itself is doing damage, not the spell. If the spell itself was doing damage, it would have SR.


Ice spears should work, it is a conjuration [cold] spell.

I do agree that conjuration (creation) and conjuration (summoning) spells should not benefit from dazing, as their effect does not deal damage, it either creates/summons something which then later does damage.

Same reason that summon monster doesn't break invisibility it also can't be dazing.

Though black tentacles has an area, so casting it does break invisibility. And the spell effect is the tentacles... maybe you can do dazing creation spells, and just summoning is excluded.


That Crazy Alchemist wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
That Crazy Alchemist wrote:

I don't recommend treating Daze as a lesser form of stun. It's true that nothing in the game is immune to it directly but many many things are immune to it indirectly.

I'm not aware of any form of applying daze that does not either: 1) Require a Fort save or 2) be a mind affecting effect. So all undead, plants, and constructs are immune to all forms of daze. And vermin, and oozes are immune to MOST forms of Daze. That means that roughly half the printed creatures are immune to it already which is roughly the same amount as are immune to stun. But making un-stunnable creatures immune to it too you've pretty much just nerfed the effect into oblivion with only a handful of creatures ever being able to be hit by it.
So no, it's already balanced, no need to re(un)balance it.
Dazing fireball. Is not mindaffecting and on a reflex save.
True, forgot about that. I'd recommend nerfing THAT then rather than Daze as a whole if you have to nerf one of them. Perhaps making it a Fort save regardless of the spell it's riding on? Would make more sense then the way it's written anyway. Dazing Spell has always been kind of a cheesy abomination.

I would use Will rather than Fortitude since that's the save used if the spell has no save. But I suppose you could change that as well.


Ear-Piercing Scream does sonic damage to one target and dazes it, with a Fort save to resist daze and half damage. Perfect for oozes in my opinion, but unless you know you're going to face an ooze it's usefulness may vary.


Ice Spears doesn't have SR. So, it's not the spell itself that's doing the damage - you are creating ice, and the ice is doing damage. Not sure why it's not listed as both creation and cold, but regardless, the spell itself is not doing any damage, the spell just creates the spears.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but any spell that does damage itself is going to have SR.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RumpinRufus wrote:

Ice Spears doesn't have SR. So, it's not the spell itself that's doing the damage - you are creating ice, and the ice is doing damage. Not sure why it's not listed as both creation and cold, but regardless, the spell itself is not doing any damage, the spell just creates the spears.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but any spell that does damage itself is going to have SR.

Most conjuration damage spells do not have SR, but it is "the spell itself" doing the damage. Acid splash, Acid arrow, acid fog, etc.


With Acid Splash, Acid Arrow, etc. it is not "the spell itself" that is doing damage, any more than Summon Nature's Ally is doing damage "itself". With Acid Splash (or Acid Arrow or Acid Fog,) you are creating acid and the acid is doing damage.

Just as there are no dazing deinonychi, there is no Dazing Acid Arrow.


Not immune to daze. It's one of those rules that should have been closed a long time ago, but hasn't been to the detriment of every DM out there having to deal with Dazing Spell or other dazing effects.


Cap. Darling wrote:
By RAW nobody is immune to daze. In my game immunity to stun is also immunity to daze.

This is wrong. Level 20 destiny bloodline bloodrager is immune to daze.


RumpinRufus wrote:

With Acid Splash, Acid Arrow, etc. it is not "the spell itself" that is doing damage, any more than Summon Nature's Ally is doing damage "itself". With Acid Splash (or Acid Arrow or Acid Fog,) you are creating acid and the acid is doing damage.

Just as there are no dazing deinonychi, there is no Dazing Acid Arrow.

The spell still created the acid. It did not create the dino, it pulled him from a different dimension.

The spell does damage when it is creation, because the spell itself created the acid, and deals the damage.

The spell does not do damage when it is summoning/calling, because it teleports a creature. The creature then does damage.

"Creation: A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates."

"Evocation spells manipulate magical energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end. In effect, an evocation draws upon magic to create something out of nothing."

There is not a significant difference between the creation of fire from a fireball, and the creation of acid from an acid splash.


Tarantula wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:

With Acid Splash, Acid Arrow, etc. it is not "the spell itself" that is doing damage, any more than Summon Nature's Ally is doing damage "itself". With Acid Splash (or Acid Arrow or Acid Fog,) you are creating acid and the acid is doing damage.

Just as there are no dazing deinonychi, there is no Dazing Acid Arrow.

The spell still created the acid. It did not create the dino, it pulled him from a different dimension.

The spell does damage when it is creation, because the spell itself created the acid, and deals the damage.

The spell does not do damage when it is summoning/calling, because it teleports a creature. The creature then does damage.

"Creation: A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates."

"Evocation spells manipulate magical energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end. In effect, an evocation draws upon magic to create something out of nothing."

There is not a significant difference between the creation of fire from a fireball, and the creation of acid from an acid splash.

Yet one allows SR and the other dosent. And that major boost to conjuration spells now makes it hard to justify Daze on them.


Tarantula wrote:

The spell still created the acid. It did not create the dino, it pulled him from a different dimension.

The spell does damage when it is creation, because the spell itself created the acid, and deals the damage.

The spell does not do damage when it is summoning/calling, because it teleports a creature. The creature then does damage.

"Creation: A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates."

"Evocation spells manipulate magical energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end. In effect, an evocation draws upon magic to create something out of nothing."

There is not a significant difference between the creation of fire from a fireball, and the creation of acid from an acid splash.

The existence of SR shows that there is a significant difference between creation and evocation. Evocation spells are a barrage of magical force. Creation spells create mundane objects, which can then do damage.

By your logic, you could also use Dazing Major Creation and go around full-attacking with a dazing weapon. Or make a Dazing Mage's Faithful Hound.


Alright, so maybe just a blanket statement that dazing can't apply to conjuration spells would fix it?

Or that spells without SR can't be made dazing?


Tarantula wrote:

Alright, so maybe just a blanket statement that dazing can't apply to conjuration spells would fix it?

Or that spells without SR can't be made dazing?

At least some conjuration spells CAN be dazing - such as Cure Light Wounds, which allows SR.

But I think any spell that has no SR cannot be made dazing. On the grounds that any spell without SR is not directly doing damage, it is creating a mundane object that can then do damage.


So errata for dazing spell to change, "Spells that do not inflict damage do not benefit from this feat." to "Spells that do not inflict damage or do not allow spell resistance do not benefit from this feat." ?


RumpinRufus wrote:
Tarantula wrote:

Alright, so maybe just a blanket statement that dazing can't apply to conjuration spells would fix it?

Or that spells without SR can't be made dazing?

At least some conjuration spells CAN be dazing - such as Cure Light Wounds, which allows SR.

But I think any spell that has no SR cannot be made dazing. On the grounds that any spell without SR is not directly doing damage, it is creating a mundane object that can then do damage.

This screams of extreme hair splitting and is not a distinction which the spells make at all. By this same token a fireball isn't doing damage, you are just creating fire out of thin air to cause damage. SR: No spells are a valid target for dazing metamagic.

The problem is that easily attacking a condition like Daze to a huge range of different spells is a terrible idea.


Tarantula wrote:

Alright, so maybe just a blanket statement that dazing can't apply to conjuration spells would fix it?

Or that spells without SR can't be made dazing?

Dazing Metamagic as it exists cannot really be fixed. Even if you remove SR: No spells from the equation you can still target all three saving throws. Many evocations target reflex natively, stuff like magic missile and battering blast allow no save and therefore give a will save and things like boneshatter and pain strike target fortitude. It is simply too easy to target an enemies weak save and greatly increase the chance of landing daze which can effectively neuter entire encounters.

The problem is exacerbated in that nearly nothing is immune to daze as applied by dazing spell and you can apply it to spells which deal damage over time making them virtual death sentences. A dazing wall of fire imposes saves round after round. If you fail the first then you need to make 4 consecutive saves to avoid that duration from extending. Add in persistent spell and things get even more difficult.

Combine all of that with things like metamagic reducing traits, Rods/Staff of the Master and/or Spell Perfection and things get wildly out of control.


andreww wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
Tarantula wrote:

Alright, so maybe just a blanket statement that dazing can't apply to conjuration spells would fix it?

Or that spells without SR can't be made dazing?

At least some conjuration spells CAN be dazing - such as Cure Light Wounds, which allows SR.

But I think any spell that has no SR cannot be made dazing. On the grounds that any spell without SR is not directly doing damage, it is creating a mundane object that can then do damage.

This screams of extreme hair splitting and is not a distinction which the spells make at all. By this same token a fireball isn't doing damage, you are just creating fire out of thin air to cause damage. SR: No spells are a valid target for dazing metamagic.

The problem is that easily attacking a condition like Daze to a huge range of different spells is a terrible idea.

Can you provide an example of a SR: No spell which directly causes damage?


Tarantula wrote:


Can you provide an example of a SR: No spell which directly causes damage?

Yes, acid splash. The argument that it does not is specious.


andreww wrote:

The problem is exacerbated in that nearly nothing is immune to daze as applied by dazing spell and you can apply it to spells which deal damage over time making them virtual death sentences. A dazing wall of fire imposes saves round after round. If you fail the first then you need to make 4 consecutive saves to avoid that duration from extending. Add in persistent spell and things get even more difficult.

Combine all of that with things like metamagic reducing traits, Rods/Staff of the Master and/or Spell Perfection and things get wildly out of control.

Dazing wall of fire is a 7th level spell. Add persistent and now it is a 9th level spell.


Tarantula wrote:
andreww wrote:

The problem is exacerbated in that nearly nothing is immune to daze as applied by dazing spell and you can apply it to spells which deal damage over time making them virtual death sentences. A dazing wall of fire imposes saves round after round. If you fail the first then you need to make 4 consecutive saves to avoid that duration from extending. Add in persistent spell and things get even more difficult.

Combine all of that with things like metamagic reducing traits, Rods/Staff of the Master and/or Spell Perfection and things get wildly out of control.

Dazing wall of fire is a 7th level spell. Add persistent and now it is a 9th level spell.

Not with spell perfection, wayang spell hunter, and so forth.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Tarantula wrote:


Can you provide an example of a SR: No spell which directly causes damage?

Yes, acid splash. The argument that it does not is specious.

The spell creates an acid, the acid causes damage. Is using wall of iron to topple onto a creature also the spell causing damage?


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
Can you provide an example of a SR: No spell which directly causes damage?
Yes, acid splash. The argument that it does not is specious.

Acid Splash does not cause damage any more than Major Creation causes damage.


Tarantula wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Tarantula wrote:


Can you provide an example of a SR: No spell which directly causes damage?

Yes, acid splash. The argument that it does not is specious.
The spell creates an acid, the acid causes damage. Is using wall of iron to topple onto a creature also the spell causing damage?

Thank you for demonstrating the speciousness of the argument.


Tarantula wrote:
andreww wrote:

The problem is exacerbated in that nearly nothing is immune to daze as applied by dazing spell and you can apply it to spells which deal damage over time making them virtual death sentences. A dazing wall of fire imposes saves round after round. If you fail the first then you need to make 4 consecutive saves to avoid that duration from extending. Add in persistent spell and things get even more difficult.

Combine all of that with things like metamagic reducing traits, Rods/Staff of the Master and/or Spell Perfection and things get wildly out of control.

Dazing wall of fire is a 7th level spell. Add persistent and now it is a 9th level spell.

Summoners can do it from a level 3 spell slot. Its level 3 for them so both magical lineage and wayang spell hunter apply. Spell Perfection allows them to ignore the level adjustment from the highest level metamagic so dazing counts as 0. The traits effectively negate the effect of persistent.

Also metamagic rods and the staff of the master necromancer exist.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
andreww wrote:

The problem is exacerbated in that nearly nothing is immune to daze as applied by dazing spell and you can apply it to spells which deal damage over time making them virtual death sentences. A dazing wall of fire imposes saves round after round. If you fail the first then you need to make 4 consecutive saves to avoid that duration from extending. Add in persistent spell and things get even more difficult.

Combine all of that with things like metamagic reducing traits, Rods/Staff of the Master and/or Spell Perfection and things get wildly out of control.

Dazing wall of fire is a 7th level spell. Add persistent and now it is a 9th level spell.
Not with spell perfection, wayang spell hunter, and so forth.

Wayang can't apply, because it is not below 3rd level. Spell perfection means you're still at least 15th level, and while the spell could be strong, there's plenty of things immune to fire by that point that won't take damage from the spell. You're still looking at 6th level for a dazing persistant spell perfected wall of fire.


Tarantula wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Tarantula wrote:


Can you provide an example of a SR: No spell which directly causes damage?

Yes, acid splash. The argument that it does not is specious.
The spell creates an acid, the acid causes damage. Is using wall of iron to topple onto a creature also the spell causing 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.


Tarantula wrote:
Wayang can't apply, because it is not below 3rd level. Spell perfection means you're still at least 15th level, and while the spell could be strong, there's plenty of things immune to fire by that point that won't take damage from the spell. You're still looking at 6th level for a dazing persistant spell perfected wall of fire.

Summoners get it at 3rd. Even if you ignore them both traits apply to plenty of level 3 spells, fireball being the prime example. Dazing fireball can effectively end encounters. If your group cannot clear out a bunch of enemies with 3 free rounds to murder them then you need to get a new group. Dazing Fireball is a level 4 spell for someone using both traits. Staff of the Master Necromancer costs 30k, 15k if you make it yourself or have it as an arcane bond. A persistent dazing fireball is a level 3 slot using a rod/the staff for dazing and both traits for persistent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:

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.

Fireball is a spell that does damage magically - Stone Call is a spell that creates stones magically, and the stones (which are non-magical) do damage.

1 to 50 of 149 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can Oozes be dazed? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.