Diego Rossi
|
RAW as I see it:
Toppling works with all force spells that do damage, require a save, or move a target.
Dazing spell is more complicated. My interpretation is that it works only if the spell directly damages the target.
That means it will not work with any spell that creates an effect that deals damage, including rays and any other effect that "counts as a weapon".
| Pizza Lord |
Toppling Spell is pretty easy to rule (for me).
If the target takes damage, fails its saving throw, or is moved by your force spell, ...
Every time your spiritual weapon hit (and damaged) a creature, you would make the Trip check to topple it. If somehow your flaming sphere or wall of fire had the Force descriptor, then every time you entered a creature's square and it failed its Reflex save (and took damage) it would need a check. Anytime a creature took damage from the wall of fire either passing through it or standing close enough on the active side to take damage they would could be toppled.
For Dazing Spell, the spell has to deal damage, and it has to be the spell. You can't use a dazing summon monster III to summon 1d4+1 eagles from the summon monster I list and have them attempt to daze a target every time they hit with their talon/talon/bite full attack.
It can definitely come down to a GM's call in some cases.
I would allow a dazing symbol of healing, even though the spell's effect is to create a symbol that then does something when triggered. It would only apply against undead or creatures damaged by positive energy (in so much as undead are immune to mind-affecting effects, assuming you consider this daze effect to be mind-affecting, which I do, there are living creatures damaged by positive energy). I would not allow it on a dazing symbol of exsanguination despite that spell immediately doing 1d6 bleed damage when triggered, because despite that being damage, it's clear that the spell is only causing the targets to start bleeding, even if the spell makes that bleeding more intense or damaging than normal bleeding. Just like I wouldn't let a Dazing spell that added +1 damage to your fire spells to add the Dazing effect to a fire spell you cast that wasn't itself dazing, even if the Dazing spell added one damage.
-------------------------------------------------------
A dazing wall of fire or a dazing wall of ice would both work (one more effectively than the other, since it would only trigger for wall of ice if a creature broke through the ice plane version and took damage from the sheet of frigid air). A dazing wall of stone would not work, even if you pushed the wall over on top of someone.
| Azothath |
as the original post is missing in *this* thread...
Has there ever been anything official on how metamagics that cause a secondary effect on damage interact with spells that create something that deal damage?
Flaming Sphere, Wall of Fire, Spiritual Weapon are all examples of the spells I'm talking about. Dazing and Toppling are two examples of the type of metamagic I am referencing.
Dazing has a lot of posts here with people weighing in on both sided. Toppling seems to mostly have people in favor of allowing it with Spiritual Weapon, with a lot of the arguments being "there are so few force spells", but that's not really a rules reason.
Dazing's wording is "damaged by the spell", while Toppling's is "If the target takes damage" so Toppling has a wider range of interpretation.
I read a comment arguing against Dazing working with created spell effects since by that logic you could use Dazing to modify Summon Monster and then that creature's attacks would cause dazing. I had started my search assuming that you could apply it to most spells, but that argument convinced me there was a problem with my thinking. Apologizes to that poster, I ended up reading a lot of threads and now can't find that comment.
please use AoN in the Rules forum as d20pfsrd has edited text.
Spells are a varied and tricky lot.You really have to read each one and figure out;
1) what the spell is doing and what is a spell effect versus something the spell causes to happen.
2) does it meet the requirements of the (metamagic) feat involved.
| Azothath |
...
Metamagic Dazing Spell
Metamagic Toppling Spell
Dazing When a creature takes damage from this spell, they become dazed for... pretty clear. Closing reiteration Spells that do not inflict damage do not benefit from this feat. A type of damage needs to be written into the spell description. +3 SplLvl
Toppling If the target takes damage, fails its saving throw, or is moved by your force spell, make a trip check against the target,... & closing ... or the force effect in response. So again, pretty clear the spell needs to be a [force] effect which causes damage, a save, or moves a target. One of those 3 needs to be written into the spell description. +1 SplLvl
Force Sword:K2 [force], Effect one sword-shaped weapon of force. While it doesn't say med sz (1d8 c19+ *2)S it does say create a +1 longsword of pure force sized appropriately for you that you can wield or give to another creature like any other longsword ... refers you to weapon for the damage.
A Dazing(Will sv) at 5th or Toppling at 3rd Force Sword spell is possible, you just have to hit with it to do damage. The +1 damage from the enhancement strengthens the argument for the application of Dazing. Since Force Sword creates a weapon rather than blast some creature(s) I can see GMs objecting on the grounds that it seems out-of-theme or could be unfair. At 5th SplLvl you might be better off with Greater Magic Weapon spell. Consider also that a PC would have to give up their adamantine greatsword or ranseur for a longsword that their feats don't work with.
ADVICE: It's okay if a GM Home Rules that a spell must do damage within CL rounds to the targets to qualify for Dazing metamagic to limit its applications before a player chooses the feat. This cuts down the effective use of Force Sword and traps like Explosive Runes to CL rounds of effect after casting.
| Azothath |
ADVICE: It's okay if a GM Home Rules that a spell must do damage within CL rounds to the targets to qualify for Dazing metamagic to limit its applications before a player chooses the feat. This cuts down the effective use of Force Sword and traps like Explosive Runes to CL rounds of effect after casting.
and yet more ADVICE chat:
I think the common idea is that the spell must cause immediate damage. If you think that's true then you need to inform your players before they choose the metamagic. That way it is considered rather than off-the-cuff or appears punitive.Dazing is still fine with "Spells that do not inflict damage immediately or on the round of casting do not benefit from this feat. Damage caused by spells on rounds after the casting do not benefit from this feat." as immediate damage spells are the main use of this feat. Creative uses and corner cases are just being eliminated.
The Game requires a GM to iron out the inconsistencies or unclear parts of RAW for their Game.
| Ballistic101 |
Since the original post was deleted off this thread:
Has there ever been anything official on how metamagics that cause a secondary effect on damage interact with spells that create something that deal damage?
Flaming Sphere, Wall of Fire, Spiritual Weapon are all examples of the spells I'm talking about. Dazing and Toppling are two examples of the type of metamagic I am referencing.
Dazing (Nethys).
Toppling (Nethys).
Dazing has a lot of posts here with people weighing in on both sided. Toppling seems to mostly have people in favor of allowing it with Spiritual Weapon, with a lot of the arguments being "there are so few force spells", but that's not really a rules reason.
Dazing's wording is "damaged by the spell", while Toppling's is "If the target takes damage" so Toppling has a wider range of interpretation.
I read a comment arguing against Dazing working with created spell effects since by that logic you could use Dazing to modify Summon Monster and then that creature's attacks would cause dazing. I had started my search assuming that you could apply it to most spells, but that argument convinced me there was a problem with my thinking. Apologizes to that poster, I ended up reading a lot of threads and now can't find that comment.
| Azothath |
on Paizo FAQs (official rulings):
they're rare. Sometimes the ruling is actually a side issue in the FAQ or a corallary.
Some of the later books had clarifications or 'stealth errata' like Ultimate Wilderness. It is transparent now via AoN as you get the latest & greatest.
If you need additional insight there's the PFS Season 10 Guide, Additional Resources, and Campaign Clarifications documents. PFS(Paizo staff) made/approved rulings for organized play campaign where RAW had to work. These are far more numerous, detailed, and extensive than the FAQs.