Hello there I have some questions about how dazing spell works with some "uncommon" spell choices to link it to.
Of course we all know the famous dazing Fireball. Hit it, let the enemies fail their save and they're dazed for 3 rounds, but what is about recurring damage spells? Like, what do I pick, Acid Arrow for example. Fire it once and every round the target takes damage it has to make another save to avoid getting dazed?
I think that example is still within RAI but how about Black Tentacle? Or summoning spells? I guess using a rod of Dazing spell together with Black Tentacles or a couple of summoned Monsters would be terrifying.
Does that work? I'd say at least Black tentacles "should" work since the spell does the damage, one "could" argue that a summoning spell doesn't deal damage per se, because by that Definition it would also break invisibility. Is there some official ruling on that or what are your opinions on it?
Sincerely
Ratnap
Ratnap wrote: Hello there I have some questions about how dazing spell works with some "uncommon" spell choices to link it to.
Of course we all know the famous dazing Fireball. Hit it, let the enemies fail their save and they're dazed for 3 rounds, but what is about recurring damage spells? Like, what do I pick, Acid Arrow for example. Fire it once and every round the target takes damage it has to make another save to avoid getting dazed?
I think that example is still within RAI but how about Black Tentacle? Or summoning spells? I guess using a rod of Dazing spell together with Black Tentacles or a couple of summoned Monsters would be terrifying.
Does that work? I'd say at least Black tentacles "should" work since the spell does the damage, one "could" argue that a summoning spell doesn't deal damage per se, because by that Definition it would also break invisibility. Is there some official ruling on that or what are your opinions on it?
Sincerely
Ratnap
That's an interesting question. Strictly RAW it could work depending on how you interpret "When a creature takes damage from this spell". I would say that a summoned creature/black tentacles does damage separately from the spell that conjured it so that wouldn't work, but that is just my opinion. I think acid arrow and other recurring spells would allow for multiple daze attempts. Repeated successes wouldn't stack, they would reset the counter.
I think there's no RAW answer, like a Persistent Spell Hold Person's number if saves after the first round.
I can with certainty that summon monster spells do not work with dazing. The spell itself deals no damage. The monster summoned by the spell does damage, but that is not the spell.
Look up dazing flaming sphere to answer your other question.
In general, there are good reasons that as a GM I just ban Dazing Spell metamagic.
Thanks for the reply so far. Seems I really have to run it through with my DM but considering that he already banned me out of several core items already (he said every fist weapon, like cestus, brass knuckles and so on doesn't Count as weapon and thus can't be enchanted for dueling, or guarding or defending enchantments)I dread he will also ban me out of a perfectly fine core metamagic feat as well :/
And yes I also considered a persistent Hold Person spell :p
The weapon thing is total BS. The real problem is there's the school of that that wielding a weapon means attacking with it, so you can't just go around constantly applying the AC bonus from a defending weapon. It makes sense for weapon enchantments, less so for arcane bonds.
The spell Black Tentacles doesn't deal damage either. Like Summon Monster the thing the spell conjures up is dealing the damage.
Well, it's usually the thing you conjure up that deals damage. Even a magic missile spell creates a magical arrow that goes off and delivers damage. So I'm not sure Black Tentacles should be excluded based on that.
I do agree that summoned monsters seem beyond the intent of dazing spell. But there's harder to rule cases like Spiritual Weapon and Spiritual Ally. I would recommend asking the question "Would casting this spell break invisibility?" If the answer is yes, then it's damage is direct enough to apply dazing to.
That being said, a way Dazing Spell is often run (and which prevents it from being completely broken) is to only allow one chance for it to daze each enemy. So if you've got a dazing wall of fire, an enemy trying to walk through it might get dazed. But pass or fail, they won't have to save against it again even if they continue to take damage from it.
As to your enchanted fist weapon, your GM is mostly correct. See this FAQ:
Quote: Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit. So while you can enchant a cestus with Defending, you won't gain its benefit unless you're actively attacking with it. I believe the same should follow for other similar enchantments.
Byakko wrote: As to your enchanted fist weapon, your GM is mostly correct. See this FAQ:
Quote: Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit. So while you can enchant a cestus with Defending, you won't gain its benefit unless you're actively attacking with it. I believe the same should follow for other similar enchantments.
Dueling work with a weapon that is "draw and in hand". I fully agree with his GM that getting a +4 to initiative for 16.000 gp is questionable.
The GM could use a different argument: "draw and in hand" isn't the same thing as "worn". Gauntlets, brass knuckles and so on aren't in hand, they are worn.
Byakko wrote: Well, it's usually the thing you conjure up that deals damage. Even a magic missile spell creates a magical arrow that goes off and delivers damage. So I'm not sure Black Tentacles should be excluded based on that.
I do agree that summoned monsters seem beyond the intent of dazing spell. But there's harder to rule cases like Spiritual Weapon and Spiritual Ally. I would recommend asking the question "Would casting this spell break invisibility?" If the answer is yes, then it's damage is direct enough to apply dazing to.
That being said, a way Dazing Spell is often run (and which prevents it from being completely broken) is to only allow one chance for it to daze each enemy. So if you've got a dazing wall of fire, an enemy trying to walk through it might get dazed. But pass or fail, they won't have to save against it again even if they continue to take damage from it.
Yeah that would be my Interpretation as well, that if a spell breaks invisibility (and deals damage)it would be eligible to have the dazing effect added. But yeah I guess I have to have "the talk" with my GM again about several Topics :/
Diego Rossi wrote: Byakko wrote: As to your enchanted fist weapon, your GM is mostly correct. See this FAQ:
Quote: Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit. So while you can enchant a cestus with Defending, you won't gain its benefit unless you're actively attacking with it. I believe the same should follow for other similar enchantments.
Dueling work with a weapon that is "draw and in hand". I fully agree with his GM that getting a +4 to initiative for 16.000 gp is questionable.
The GM could use a different argument: "draw and in hand" isn't the same thing as "worn". Gauntlets, brass knuckles and so on aren't in hand, they are worn.
Psychic caster supremacy. Carry your dueling weapon in one hand, a wand or rod in the other.
My GM banned dueling, defending and guarding outright anyway since None of those are core enchantments and "dueling" implies that it's ment for duels and not for a wary swordsman that carefully walks through a dungeon with his sword drawn ^^'
So yeah, main question was with the dazing spell and I thank you all again for the Input ^^
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
