Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Atavar" data-source="post: 3617020" data-attributes="member: 7136">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</blockquote>

Verification