A couple questions regarding Aqueous Orb. If one casts a Dazing Aqueous Orb and four medium sized creatures get dazed and engulfed within the Orb can you choose not to engulf them?
Secondly can you choose to dump them out of the Orb if they are engulfed so you can attack them while they don't enjoy the benefit of cover in the Orb.
One last question if anyone knows, on the first round the orb is conjured can you move it around (30ft) after you place it where you want it?
Hmm ya I wasn't sure if on that first round a move action was required even to move it around as it isn't stated :S
Does anyone if you could spend two move actions to move the orb 60ft?
Ya that was the idea, thanks guys.
Put me in the camp that says dazing aqueous orb is not legal.
Would dazing touch of gracelessness work?
Of course not. Ability damage is not damage, just like non lethal dmg is not damage.
Additionally, as you noted, dazing requires the spell to do damage. Aqueous orb doesn't damage, it creates an effect that damages.
Dazing is such a powerful feat that I hue to the narrowest definition construeable.
Dazing fireball, snowball, legal.
Dazing produce flame, fire wall : not legal.
Dazing ray of frost: not legal. (It's a cantrip.)
Dazing produce flame, fire wall : not legal.
Dazing ray of frost: not legal. (It's a cantrip.)
I re-read the metamagic Dazing spell and I don't follow why these aren't legal applications.
The cantrip one makes some sense: original level of the spell is 0, so being dazed for 0 rounds means not being dazed. Not that it isn't legal, it is just that you're using a 3rd level slot to cast a cantrip with no additional effect.
Not sure how produce flame or fire wall are "not legal", however.
I agree, not being useful isn't the same as not being legal. I thought maybe there was a ruling or FAQ somewhere I'd missed that stated that metamagic couldn't be applied to cantrips.
Strictly speaking, the RAW would seem to indicate that dazing can be applied to any spell. However, if the spell doesn't deal damage then the metamagic just isn't triggered and you've basically wasted the additional effort. Seems perfectly legal to cast a dazing alter self, but in the end it's just going to be a really expensive version of alter self that provides no additional benefits beyond the normal spell.
looking again, the feat even supports this idea.
Spells that do not inflict damage do not benefit from this feat.
It doesn't say the metamagic can't be applied to spells that don't do damage, just that they don't benefit from it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here comes dazing summon monster III! Dazing planar ally! Dazing simulacrum! Mwahahahahaa!
...Or not. The spell has to be the thing doing the damage, not the thing that the spell creates/summons/whatever. This is a really muddy distinction at times (e.g., What about instantaneous conjuration blast spells used pretty much like evocations? Does the acid arrow spell deal damage or does it conjure an acid arrow that consequently deals damage?). Barring a clarifying FAQ, expect table variation regarding where the line is drawn.
/dazing fabricate!
//dazing raise dead!1
///dazing create demiplane!!!uno
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so no dazing fireballs? because the fireball spell creates an explosion a bead that explodes, and it's the explosion that does the damage.
so no dazing fireballs? because the fireball spell createsan explosiona bead that explodes, and it's the explosion that does the damage.
That's the state of the text--most will say it's fine, some few will say otherwise, and there's not much we can do about it.
as long as you're consistent. though this makes me wonder which spells can even be said to do damage themselves at all...
as long as you're consistent. though this makes me wonder which spells can even be said to do damage themselves at all...
The text of the spell is a fluff description which does not alter the mechanical construction.
All these are legal for dazing (generally speaking)
Spells which do damage with a save.
Spells which do damage with a to hit rolls incorporated as part of the spell (scorching ray).
It includes spells such as shocking grasp which entitle you to multiple attempts to hit to land the spell, but not spells like icicle dagger where the effect has a life outside the attack roll.
Re: ray of frost.
Cantrips are a separate class feature from spells. Infinite uses per day; no bonuses due to intelligence. dazing meta applies to spells, cantrips while similar to spells are not spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
are you intentionally ignoring the context of my comment?
Spells which do damage with a save.
Aqueous orbs does make non lethal damage with a save the first time it hits you. Also, dazing spell forces a Will save for spells that do damage without a save.
Of course not. Ability damage is not damage, just like non lethal dmg is not damage.
I disagree, But , this is a better point you are making, as long as you are consistent not allowing power attack, bardic performance or any other feature to increase the nonlethal damage done in melee or any other kind.
Of course not. Ability damage is not damage, just like non lethal dmg is not damage.I disagree, But , this is a better point you are making, as long as you are consistent not allowing power attack, bardic performance or any other feature to increase the nonlethal damage done in melee or any other kind.
it seems like a better argument, but it's actually just not true. nowhere does it say that nonlethal damage isn't damage. in fact, both it and ability damage are literally called damage. it's right there in the label.
it seems like a better argument, but it's actually just not true. nowhere does it say that nonlethal damage isn't damage. in fact, both it and ability damage are literally called damage. it's right there in the label.
I did look for it before answering and he could stick to this single mention. But as I see it, the fact that real is in quotes clearly indicates that it is not meant to be taken literally. That, and the fact that no feat makes distinction between normal and nonlethal damage is why I disagree. (Except the ones that allow you to intimidate or reduce penalties for doing it with lethal weapons).
"Nonlethal Damage
Nonlethal damage represents harm to a character that is not life-threatening. Unlike normal damage, nonlethal damage is healed quickly with rest.Dealing Nonlethal Damage
Certain attacks deal nonlethal damage. Other effects, such as heat or being exhausted, also deal nonlethal damage. When you take nonlethal damage, keep a running total of how much you’ve accumulated. Do not deduct the nonlethal damage number from your current hit points. It is not “real” damage. Instead, when your nonlethal damage equals your current hit points, you’re staggered (see below), and when it exceeds your current hit points, you fall unconscious."
yeah exactly. i agree it's pretty clear what the intent of those quotation marks is.
Not this crap again.just like non lethal dmg is not damage.
Not this crap again.
But just because I'm not a big fan of contentless snark:
Take nonlethal dmg > hp + con: you're unconscious.
Take lethal dmg > hp + con: you're dead.
Healing spells heal lethal damage and non lethal damage at the same time.
You heal non lethal damage at a rate per hour.
You heal lethal damage at a rate per day.
The scarify spell converts lethal damage to nonlethal damage.
Creatures can be immune to non-lethal damage; they still usually take damage.
With usual weapons, it is more difficult to incapacity a creature without causing permanent damage. This is why you are assessed a -4 penalty.
Likewise, if a Paladin attacks someone to do nonlethal the alignment repercussions are likely different than if they attack to kill.
Argue as you like, but it reasonable that inorder to "daze" someone that you have to do "real" damage.
Your argument is akin to saying water tank and battle tank are the same thing because they both have the word "tank". Other than they both share the same word, they are different in numerous and sundry ways. Why would you try to insist they were the same?
Dazing requires a spell do "damage". "non-lethal damage" <> "damage".
no, we're saying that a rectangle and a rhombus are both types of parallelograms. similarly, nonlethal damage and "damage" (and ability damage) are types of damage (no quotation marks). you are arguing that nonlethal damage isn't a type of damage because it isn't normal damage or you're arguing that the dazing spell feat specifically refers to normal damage. the former is nonsense and you have yet to submit convincing evidence of the latter. i don't believe any of the RAW say that anytime you see the word "damage" alone it means normal damage and not damage in the general sense.
no, we're saying that a rectangle and a rhombus are both types of parallelograms. similarly, nonlethal damage and "damage" (and ability damage) are types of damage (no quotation marks). you are arguing that nonlethal damage isn't a type of damage because it isn't normal damage or you're arguing that the dazing spell feat specifically refers to normal damage. the former is nonsense and you have yet to submit convincing evidence of the latter. i don't believe any of the RAW say that anytime you see the word "damage" alone it means normal damage and not damage in the general sense.
I understand your argument. I don't agree with it.
Ability drain is not ability damage despite the fact that they both share the word ability.Nor are they abilities. The spoiler I quoted says that non lethal damage isn't real damage.
Whereas you have nothing on your side saying it is.
Further more - according to your interpretation Dazing touch of gracelessness, dazing ray of exhaustion ought to be legal.
I disagree.
I think my definition of what is a legal dazing spell better balances the game than yours.
Doubt either one of us are going to convince the other, but I think its useful to make people aware of how things may go at table.
no, the spoiler you quoted (and that was quoted and discussed literally two posts before yours which makes me wonder if you actually read the things other people type) reads
It is not “real” damage.
note the quotation marks you omitted. are you saying they mean nothing? the (apparently obvious to everyone else) meaning seems to be that nonlethal damage is not normal damage. it goes on to explain in what way this type of damage is different from normal damage. but if literally every time the rules mentioned damage without it being preceded by "nonlethal" or "ability", then the word "real" wouldn't even need to be there much less have quotation marks around it.
that you think my last post said something that you could disagree with suggests you do not, in fact, understand my argument. rectangles and rhombi are parallelograms. that is a fact. nonlethal damage and normal damage are both types of damage. also a fact. whether or not the dazing spell feat refers to rhombi or parallelograms is debatable, but all i said in my last post was that that had to be the point of contention because the other thing is simply a matter of facts not contradicted by RAW. i suppose you could disagree with that, but you'd just be wrong.
your suggestion about touch of gracelessness and ray of exhaustion also suggests you do not understand my argument. neither one of those spells deals ability damage. one applies a penalty and "functions just like ability damage" which isn't the same as "is ability damage" because, if it were, there would be no need to draw a distinction between penalties and damage. the other applied a condition that comes with penalties which, again, are treated like but are not damage. obviously neither of these spells will gain any benefit from the dazing spell feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
no, the spoiler you quoted (and that was quoted and discussed literally two posts before yours which makes me wonder if you actually read the things other people type) reads
It is not “real” damage.note the quotation marks you omitted. are you saying they mean nothing?
I didn't omit quotes. So I am left wondering what the hell you are talking about.
Regarding the rest of it. You are truly amazing. Somehow you can read my mind, what I understand about your argument.
And you can interpret my reticence to want to get involved in a long rules discussion with someone who posts condescending and snide posts as not understanding.
Bully for you.
the (apparently obvious to everyone else)
Wow, so now you're an expert on what everyone else thinks, as well.
Truly wow. Pleased to meet you God.
rectangles and rhombi are parallelograms. that is a fact.
Yay!
nonlethal damage and normal damage are both types of damage. also a fact.
And here you demonstrate the inability to separate fact from your legendary (in your own mind) opinion.
touch of gracelessness and ray of exhaustion
... blah blah blah
No it suggests I was careless in the former case and subject to automatic word completion in the second.
I understand that *you, oh god" believe that non-lethal damage as well as ability damage - are all types of damage. Yay!
I would however point out the text of chill touch:
A touch from your hand, which glows with blue energy, disrupts the life force of living creatures. Each touch channels negative energy that deals 1d6 points of damage. The touched creature also takes 1 point of Strength damage unless it makes a successful Fortitude saving throw. You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level.
An undead creature you touch takes no damage of either sort, but it must make a successful Will saving throw or flee as if panicked for 1d4 rounds + 1 round per caster level.
Here's the money line: "An undead creature you touch takes no damage of either sort."
Categorically saying that there are more than one kinds of damage, and that the undead will take no damage of either kind.
Now, getting back to the crux of the argument. Pathfinder uses short hands and colloquialisms all the time. It is not a "rigorous" definition.
Almost every single time that pathfinder refers to "damage" it is referring to damage that gets subtracted from your hitpoints. (Lethal damage). However, since that is the kind of damage more than 95% of the time - the lethal gets dropped and is understood.
According to your argument - ability damage is a type of damage.
But the definition of damage (Core Rule book) "Damage reduces a target’s current hit points." Does ability damage reduce a targets hit points?
No so it clearly isn't "damage". Thus blowing a whole in your rhomboid argument. Ability damage - doesn't reduce hit points - it therefore cannot be a subclass - it is, indeed a parallel class. A different type of damage.
{Watertank, Battle Tank} ∉ Tank.
{Ability Damage, Nonlethal Damage, Lethal Damage} ∉ Damage
No one I know allows dazing to work on calcific touch. If you wish to allow dazing calcific touch at your tables: Go right ahead. Its insane, but hey, its your game.
So, we've established:
A) That the game does differentiate between different kinds of damage.
B). That the game uses the term damage non rigorously. Damage (with no other qualifiers) refers to that which reduces Hitpoints.
C). Thats what the dazing metamagic feat refers to when it says. "When a creature takes damage from this spell".
D). Neither nonlethal nor ability damage reduce hit points. They are not damage. They do not qualify for dazing.
And finally:
No amounts of insults or condescension on your part is going to persuade me; and I doubt I will persuade you. So instead of making character attacks or whatever - why not just state your case and leave it there. Do we really have to argue about it for 22 pages?
I didn't omit quotes. So I am left wondering what the hell you are talking about.no, the spoiler you quoted (and that was quoted and discussed literally two posts before yours which makes me wonder if you actually read the things other people type) reads
It is not “real” damage.note the quotation marks you omitted. are you saying they mean nothing?
i'm talking about the actual quotation marks... which you omitted as though they have no meaning.
Regarding the rest of it. You are truly amazing. Somehow you can read my mind, what I understand about your argument.
i never claimed to read your mind. i only told you what the things you typed suggested to me. nice attempt to pretend nothing you say says anything about you though...
the (apparently obvious to everyone else)
Wow, so now you're an expert on what everyone else thinks, as well.
Truly wow. Pleased to meet you God.
says the guy called "Perfect Tommy"... well, PT, allow me to introduce you to hyperbole.
And here you demonstrate the inability to separate fact from your legendary (in your own mind) opinion.nonlethal damage and normal damage are both types of damage. also a fact.
what is legendary is your ability to think the word damage doesn't mean damage.
I understand that *you, oh god" believe that non-lethal damage as well as ability damage - are all types of damage. Yay!
...
According to your argument - ability damage is a type of damage.
But the definition of damage (Core Rule book) "Damage reduces a target’s current hit points." Does ability damage reduce a targets hit points?No so it clearly isn't "damage". Thus blowing a whole in your rhomboid argument. Ability damage - doesn't reduce hit points - it therefore cannot be a subclass - it is, indeed a parallel class. A different type of damage.
curiously enough ability damage is mentioned under the "damage" heading on page 179 of CRB, so... it's pretty clearly a type of damage.
also, you repeating that two different kinds of tanks aren't different kinds of tanks isn't going to convince me...
Speaking of ignoring arguments:
Still no answer from you on whether you think dazing calcific touch is AOk...
As for quotes: mate, I don't know why you can't see them. I see them just fine. Do you really want to argue about quote marks? Really?
As for Perfect Tommy. Not my name; perfection is not my claim. Its a character in a movie. Not my fault if you don't get the allusion.
Damage is listed on page 179...
Yes. Which means its a discussion of ways in which things may damage you. It is not a listing of all things that are types of damage. If it were meant to be a list, its not a very good one. It left out "Non-lethal damage"
A previous heading was "Attacks of Opportunity".
In that section there is a heading: Threatened squares. Does that mean threatened squares are a type of Attack of Opportunity?
No. It means hey.. If we are going to talk about attacks of opportunity, we need to talk about threatening squares.
Alchemists formula's are listed under spells. Does that make them spells. Nope. Still extracts. Just a convenient way to organize information.
So we have clearly established here that the fact that ability damage is listed means precisely... Nothing.
Damage: reduces hit points. Does ability damage reduce hitpoints? No.
Ergo: Its not damage.
Tanks. I am claiming that other than sharing a word (tank) water tanks and battle tanks are not elements of any set in the usual sense of the word.
Peanut butter is in fact, not butter.
Peanut butter cups are in fact not cups.
Speaking of ignoring arguments:
Still no answer from you on whether you think dazing calcific touch is AOk...
my bad that was unintentional though it hardly seems necessary for me to have to actually type it. yeah, dazing calcific touch is fine. that spell deals damage. i'm not sure what else you thought i would say...
As for quotes: mate, I don't know why you can't see them. I see them just fine. Do you really want to argue about quote marks? Really?
we're not referring to the same post. they're in the spoiler. they're not in the next post and yes i want to argue about quotation marks because, as i said before, they mean something.
Damage is listed on page 179...
Yes. Which means its a discussion of ways in which things may damage you. It is not a listing of all things that are types of damage. If it were meant to be a list, its not a very good one. It left out "Non-lethal damage"
again, you misunderstand me. i wasn't claiming it was a comprehensive list of all the types of damage. i was claiming that ability damage being mentioned in a section headed "Damage" clearly indicates that they think ability damage is a type of damage. not mentioning it there wouldn't necessarily mean it wasn't a type of damage (see: nonlethal), but that it is mentioned means it must fit under the header "Damage". so it's damage.
A previous heading was "Attacks of Opportunity".
In that section there is a heading: Threatened squares. Does that mean threatened squares are a type of Attack of Opportunity?No. It means hey.. If we are going to talk about attacks of opportunity, we need to talk about threatening squares.
Alchemists formula's are listed under spells. Does that make them spells. Nope. Still extracts. Just a convenient way to organize information.
So we have clearly established here that the fact that ability damage is listed means precisely... Nothing.
yes, if you ignore what it does mean, which is that it's relevant. if you can reasonably explain why ability damage is relevant to the section that isn't "because it's damage", i'll concede the point.
Tanks. I am claiming that other than sharing a word (tank) water tanks and battle tanks are not elements of any set in the usual sense of the word.
feel free to look up the etymology of the word tank. or really any of those examples you gave. they aren't called those things purely by coincidence...
anyway, it works like this: there are different types of damage. "hit point damage" is a category that excludes "nonlethal" and "ability" damage. we have precedent for this in the power attack and deadly aim feats. when they mean to exclude other types of damage, they already have language to do so. dazing spell does not use this language. (i'm actually not 100% about whether or not hit point damage is meant to exclude nonlethal. the interpretation that hit point damage is meant to be any damage measured in hit points also seems valid.)
but i'm done now. i was never really out to convince you. only to point out your errors so other people don't get confused. have a nice day/night.
Not this crap again.just like non lethal dmg is not damage.
LETS FIRE THIS BABY BACK UP!!!!!!!
LETS FIRE THIS BABY BACK UP!!!!!!!Not this crap again.just like non lethal dmg is not damage.
dude that thread was weird. i didn't finish it but the first few pages are just people arguing a completely tangential issue about the order of operations for damage processing and whether or not power attack cares if the attack causes hit point damage or the target takes hit point damage (obviously it's the former as the feat is a buff to attacks and not a debuff to targets). did they ever get past that and realize it has nothing to do with whether or not nonlethal damage is hit point damage?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well. That escalated quickly.
Not actually surprised.
So per Tommy's replies, weapon specialization doesn't apply to nonlethal attacks.
So, weapon specialization (Sap) literally does nothing. That's good to know.
edit: on a side note, I want to say this discussion of "Spells that do damage" has been discussed when talking about the arcane trickster and what spells allow them to apply sneak attack via surprise spells. The wording on the ability is pretty much the same as the wording on dazing spell so if it works for one it works for the other. From what I've found the general consensus was that both non-lethal damage and ability damage are treated as damage, for purposes of spells and abilities. But the sneak attack damage on something like Enervation would just be hitpoint damage instead of negative levels.
So per Tommy's replies, weapon specialization doesn't apply to nonlethal attacks.So, weapon specialization (Sap) literally does nothing. That's good to know.
edit: on a side note, I want to say this discussion of "Spells that do damage" has been discussed when talking about the arcane trickster and what spells allow them to apply sneak attack via surprise spells. The wording on the ability is pretty much the same as the wording on dazing spell so if it works for one it works for the other. From what I've found the general consensus was that both non-lethal damage and ability damage are treated as damage, for purposes of spells and abilities. But the sneak attack damage on something like Enervation would just be hitpoint damage instead of negative levels.
On a side note the question of weapon-like spells (or non-weapon like spells) isn't really anything like the discussion about dazing.
After all, poking one with a finger might well deliver a spell (such as calcific touch). But it won't do damage. Sneak attacks work when you do hp damage and roll an attack roll.
Dazing doesn't require an attack roll; it works fine on spells that give reflex saves. So in short, not much like weaponlike spells discussion at all.
Regarding weapon specialization sap.
Not my position at all. My position is that dazing metamagic feat is sufficiently imprecisely worded that I am free to impose a strict interpretation which may or may not be necessary on other sections of the game.
my bad that was unintentional though it hardly seems necessary for me to have to actually type it. yeah, dazing calcific touch is fine. that spell deals damage. i'm not sure what else you thought i would say...Speaking of ignoring arguments:
Still no answer from you on whether you think dazing calcific touch is AOk...
So in your world dazing works on ability damage; it works on summoned creatures, it works on pit spells. And in your world, dazing is likely to be viewed as extremely OP.
In mine in works on none of them. And dazing is strong, but not nearly as insane.
hmm... that FAQ solidifies my stance on "hit point damage." nonlethal is included.