The Celerity Spells (PHB2) and Casters Immune to Being Dazed

[Atavar]

How does the celerity family of spells (Players Handbook II, p. 105) affect a caster who is immune to being dazed?

In brief, the celerity spells are each cast as an immediate action, and each allows the caster to immediately take an action (move action for lesser celerity, standard action for celerity, and full-round action for greater celerity) at the cost of being dazed until the end of her next turn.

A player of mine believes that if her character is immune to being dazed then she can cast this spell to act whenever she wants to act in a round, and then on her next turn she can take her normal amount of actions (minus a swift action for having cast an immediate action celerity spell), since all that being dazed means in being unable to take actions. However, I believe that the intent of the spell differs. Here is the flavor text for the spell:

"You borrow a slice of time from the future, pulling it into the present so that you can act."

Going by this, even if you are not dazed that "slice of time" was still used up, and thus is unavailable to be used again. What I am thinking of ruling is this: A daze-immune caster isn't dazed as a result of this spell, but she cannot take the type of action on her regular turn that she took as part of casting the celerity spell.

For example, before her turn she uses an immediate action, casts celerity, and is able to use a standard action to cast another spell. When her regular turn comes up she does NOT have a swift action available (since she used an immediate action to cast celerity), she does NOT have a standard action available (since she "borrowed" that slice of time already with the celerity spell), and she DOES have a move action available (since she wasn't dazed from casting the spell). Plus, if she isn't dazed she can still take any allowable actions outside of her turn, like attacks of opportunity, and she still threatens foes around her when armed.

So, which is more correct per the RAW and per the (perceived) intended rules: What my player thinks, what I am considering ruling, or something else?

Thanks,

Atavar

 

[Twowolves]

Just out of curiosity, how is it that the caster is immune to daze?

 

[frankthedm]

Unless the PC is immune to time, they still lose their turn. Daze was chosen as a term that best fit mechanically to the effect.

If there is a way to stop the "daze" the caster never got the effect of the celerity spell in the first place.

 

[Atavar]

Just out of curiosity, how is it that the caster is immune to daze?

I was told that there is a feat, possibly in Dragonmarked, that renders you immune to the dazed and stunned conditions. I haven't had a chance to look it up yet, though. My question, of course, assumes that there is such a feat (or other way of becoming immune to being dazed).

Later,

Atavar

 

[Atavar]

If there is a way to stop the "daze" the caster never got the effect of the celerity spell in the first place.

So, you're suggesting that a dazed-immune character gets no benefit from the celerity spells? I had not considered that. While I can kind of see the logic in that, it doesn't seem correct to me. YMMV, of course.

Thanks,

Atavar

 

[Diirk]

"You borrow a slice of time from the future, pulling it into the present so that you can act."

This is just flavour text with no bearing on game mechanics. By the rules, daze immunity lets them act again during their turn. If they didn't want this to be the case, they should have explicitly declared that you can take no actions until the end of your next turn, similar to the way dimension door in the player's handbook works.

Of course, working the way its written is probably too powerful so you may want to disallow it from a balance perspective, but as written it works.

 

[Solarious]

RAW, she's right. Practically, they shouldn't have used the Dazed effect. Feel free to house-rule it into a Dimension Door-like inability to act, as this really is a bit off the edge. Extra rounds/actions are bad for your health.

 

[Atavar]

I finally looked up the feat in question. It is called mark of the dauntless and is found on p. 142 of Dragonmarked. It has as a prerequisite any true dragonmark.

A character with mark of the dauntless cannot be dazed or stunned. Also, by touching a dazed or stunned creature as a standard action the character can remove that condition from that creature.

Later,

Atavar

 

[dirkformica]

There's also a Paladin spell that makes you immune to Daze. 4th level, Favor of the Martyr in Spell Compendium.

Hmm... this makes me want to make a Prestige Paladin with Spell domain.

 

[irdeggman]

I finally looked up the feat in question. It is called mark of the dauntless and is found on p. 142 of Dragonmarked. It has as a prerequisite any true dragonmark.

A character with mark of the dauntless cannot be dazed or stunned. Also, by touching a dazed or stunned creature as a standard action the character can remove that condition from that creature.

Later,

Atavar

Without checking Dragonmarked.

What is the way to bet a true dragonmark?

I assume it follows the pattern of the other dragonmarks (each requires a feat as part of the feat chain):

Least
Lesser
Greater
(then I assume True)

So it would require 5 feats in order to get this immunity to being dazed.

Seems pretty steep to me and so it does seem indeed balanced since the RAW as written seems to allow it (and there are 5 feats necessary to get there - the "balance" issue).