PF wizard rulings questions

[Gnaeus]

Background: this is a mid/high op game of 3.PF. Characters are 9th level gestalt. Party is Cleric//archaeologist bard, sorcerer/dragon disciple//fighter, and wizard//carmendine monk. All 3 of these questions involve the wizard//monk, who is by far the best at optimization.

Last game, the wizard and I politely disagreed about a couple of rulings. I was just checking to make sure I was fair.

1. Icy prison. This spell makes a target helpless. It can be broken with a high DC strength check as a full round action. His interpretation: helpless means no actions. Target is stuck taking 9 hp/round until he dies or is freed by another. My interpretation. Helpless means he can't move but not necessarily that he has no actions. Target can make the strength check himself, or can teleport out of the prison if he has a way to do so that does not involve movement, like psionics or a su ability. He thinks that nerfs spell to uselessness. Thoughts?

2. Wizard is a foresight sub school diviner with a ton of prescience re rolls. Text says they can replace a d20 roll at any time. I interpret that as any point in the turn sequence, without requiring an action, including after dice are rolled, but before results are announced. He says that any time means that he can see if his first roll succeeds, then choose whether to replace. I think that is a bit too strong for what is already an incredibly powerful ability. Thoughts?

3. Player has dazing spell. Ok, I knew it was powerful when he took it. Unfortunately, as they wander towards the Drow stronghold, I made it clear that it was so strong, enemy casters are likely to be using it as well, and being gestalt, the single classed casters they fight tend to be well above party level. Suddenly, a serious discussion on how to nerf this feat erupted. Options discussed included having the feat only daze for one round instead of one round per level, having it daze for level/2 rounds, or making it so that each spell can only daze a target once (instead of having ongoing spells reimpose daze with each failed save, so a level 2 DOT gives a chance to daze the target for 2 rounds every round, which essentially stunlocks anything that it is cast on) does anyone have opinions on how to deal with this powerful feat other than just banning it?

[Gnomes2169]

Well first off, wrong forum bud. This is 5e, not 3.5/ pathfinder. This being said...

1. The helpess condition typically prevents the use of actions. However, the spell specifically calls out that you may use an action to break it, and specific always trumps general. Therefore, allowing creatures to make their full round action is perfectly legal.

2. This time, the player is right. He can do it at any time by RAW, and this includes after knowing the results of the roll. This being said, a good way to balance the ability out would be to make the source cost an immediate action instead of being basically an at-will nope button.

3. Reducing it to 1 round of duration would be a good effort, or to 1/2 levels and you can only target a creature with it once each encounter (whether or not they make their saving throw). A third option would be to reduce duration to 1 round/ 2 levels and causing the caster to be dazed as well for 1d4+1 rounds if the spell succeeds.

Edit: ... Wait a second... I was just in the 5e forums... iPhone gitp, what are you doing?! O-o

[Psyren]

I disagree on #1 - that line in the spell to me refers to others using an action to break the creature out. The guy inside is indeed helpless and thus unable to act (provided he failed his save; if he's merely entangled he can break free on his own.)

2) Yeah, at any point means just that, at any point. It's not as powerful as you think though; he has to burn a use before he even knows if he'll need to make a crucial roll (e.g. a save), and even if he's right, his "saved roll" might suck that round also and thus be wasted. It's great for when you need to throw off something ongoing or you know that you're about to get hit by something nasty, but otherwise the mindgames can be quite fun for both sides.

3) Some good ways to nerf this if you're so inclined:

a) It only dazes one enemy regardless of how many are hit by the spell.
b) Spells with a save must be saved twice (the regular spell save, plus the Will save.)
c) It only dazes for one round, or 1d3 if you're feeling charitable.
d) Some combination of the above.

[Gnaeus]

Well first off, wrong forum bud. This is 5e, not 3.5/ pathfinder. This being said...

Edit: ... Wait a second... I was just in the 5e forums... iPhone gitp, what are you doing?! O-o

My fault. I misposted, immediately realized it and reported myself. Sorry for confusion.

[Gnaeus]

1. The helpess condition typically prevents the use of actions. However, the spell specifically calls out that you may use an action to break it, and specific always trumps general. Therefore, allowing creatures to make their full round action is perfectly legal.

Well, does it? Helpless never says you don't get actions. I don't mean to be semantic like the argument "Dead doesn't say you don't get actions". Look at the conditions that make you helpless.


A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy.

Paralyzed clearly spells out that mental actions are allowed. Bound isn't a condition, but I think we can all agree that being tied up doesn't prevent you from taking mental actions, or even physical actions that are consistent with being tied up (like making an escape artist check). Held allows you to take full round actions to break the effect (with language that seems to parallel Ice Prison pretty closely). 3 of 5 actions listed in "Helpless" allow you to take actions, and being encased in ice seems more like being bound than being asleep (with the exception that it clearly blocks line of effect to anyone else).

[WorstPlayerEver]

Hello forums goers,

I am the disagreeable player in question that Gnaeus mentions in his original post. Since my DM is lazy about checking his email but awesome at helping people who need it on the Internet, I am here to say : Gnaeus check your email.

Obviously I have my own opinions about points 1 and 2, but am interested to hear what the online community thinks about these issues as well.

As to point 3. I have always been up front for the nearly 2 years we have been playing this particular campaign that Dazing Spell is extremely powerful and might one day need a nerf. At the conclusion of our most recent game session, I was just trying to take a page from the Systemless Handbook of Practical Optimization : "the nerf that you pick yourself will almost always hurt less". We have not had many gaming sessions where the character in question has been capable of casting 5th level spells. All attempts to use 2nd level dazing spells from 5th level slots have previously failed due to spell resistance and saving throws. I had the feeling that, after getting one to land last night, the time to start the nerf discussion in earnest had finally arrived.

Personally, I really like the ability to use dazing spell to mix and match with other spells to adjust the saving throw that gets targeted and the area and size of the effect, turning little used spells into interesting Battlefield Control options. I feel this provides amazing tactical variance and fun at the gaming table. I think where it starts to fall down is when it causes many rounds of dazing (most stun and daze effects tend to be limited to a single round). It is the potential for a Dazing Melf's Acid Arrow to trigger a save or be dazed for 2 rounds every time the spell causes damage to the target (round after round after round resulting in total lockdown). I would put forward the following possible nerfs :

1) Limit the Daze to a single round rather than a number of rounds equal to the original level of the spell.
2) In the event of an ongoing damage effect, or any other situation in which the same creature would be affected a second time by the same casting of a dazing spell (like standing close to a Dazing Wall of Fire, or inside a Dazing Elemental Aura, or chomped upon by a Dazing Manyjaws round after round), the target(s) get a +4 bonus on the save to resist the effect from the second time onward. If we decide later that this reduction in effectiveness is just not enough, change it such that once a creature has been dazed by a particular casting of a spell, they simply cannot be dazed again by that casting.

In conjunction with the above limitations, I was also going to propose that the level adjustment for the metamagic be adjusted down to +2 from +3 and that we test that change for a while to see if it is enough of a nerf. If it is not, then return it to +3.

Perhaps the online community can weigh in as well on the theoretical effectiveness of these proposed changes.