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

[Mouseferatu]

When I allow the celerity spells at all--which is rare; I tend to ban them in most of my campaigns*--I've houseruled them to say that even creatures normally immune to being dazed are still dazed by casting. The temporal aspects of the spell override any normal immunities.

*I don't ban them because they're mechanically broken. I ban them because I've played in games with celerity-using casters before, and they tend to make combat really boring for the other players. It's not a fun spell, and it causes more problems than it fixes, IME.

 

[Atavar]

Without checking Dragonmarked.

What is the way to bet a true dragonmark?

Actually, any non-aberrant dragonmark is a true dragonmark. "True" is not another level of dragonmark.

Thus, only one feat (dragonmark, least) is required to meet the prerequisite.

Later,

Atavar

 

[aarondirebear]

sorry, darn thing posted twice instead of editing it like I wanted...someone delete THIS one?

 

[aarondirebear]

More rules confusion caused by Wizards of the Coast's designers failing to pick up a bloody thesaurus...

The action in which you lose a turn is making up for the hole in time you made, basically. Would it have hurt them to call it "temporal lag"?

If it said something like "you move very fast" then I would conclude that you COULD become immune to the daze effect. However that is not the case.

Personally I want to see itbe consistant: If a bard can speed up time, then change Time Stop to actually stop time once more, with anything tougher than a demigod being "outside of time" and immune.