and into wrote:See invis is often described as having acute vision in terms of descriptive text, so it wouldn't be "unflavorful" for see invisible enemies to be immune to dazzle. Dazzling spray is really strong for a level 3 spell, much less a dual school one. It could take the hit.
So, uh, a multiple school spell of any given level is supposed to be weaker than a single school spell of the same level? What? Since when? o___O Really?
And anyways: the exact opposite fluff interpretation is equally valid. See invisible is "supernaturally acute eyesight", at least for player characters. It is not "see through walls" or "see without eyes" or "invulnerable eyes" If something is invisible, and the monster can see, the monster can see the invisible something. If your eyes are overloaded with searing light, it's not like everything has turned suddenly magically invisible, it's just that your eyes have become temporarily useless. If there was a lv2 water/earth spell called "Mudshot" that filled orc high priests faces with mud, they wouldn't be able to see invisible stuff because they wouldn't be able to see visible stuff either because it's covered by the mud. I really don't see, pardon the pun, where does "blindness immunity" come into the picture. If blindness immunity is flavorful, so is its opposite.
But all this is grasping at straws.
Let me put the problem upside down. The problem is not with dazzling spray, the problem is with monster sInv. With what you are proposing, monster sInv trumps both invisibility AND dazzled, which more or less means that as soon as you have a reliable source of invisibility, you might as well forget dazzling spray and get some straight conjurations (or swiftness to run for your hide) instead of a weird hex/conjurations dual school spell, because with dazzling spray you will only be affecting the same set of monsters as with invisibility, except for a shorter time, inside a much more restricted area, in much smaller numbers. Oh, with a little bit of damage sprinkled on top. Which is kinda irrelevant if you're stabbing anyway, for anything that you actually need to stab. This doesn't feel like nerfing, this feels like dumbing down to the point of might as well remove the spell from the game and instead put Fulminant Prism, Metabolic Englaciation or just whatever disabling or hampering spell in the enchanter starting book.
I'd rather have Dazzling Spray be made level 4 or 5, or
be removed than be made... redundant
Invisibility is a tool for reliably getting rid of or escaping from monsters with sInv, and Dazzling Spray is a tool for not-so-reliably getting rid of or escaping from most monsters, sInv or not. Dazzle apparently has a harder time connecting with higher HD monsters, but it can be used. And against Sense Invisible you were fucked anyways with any of the two effects, unless you managed to get further away than 4 tiles... but that's already been removed.
Awake Frost Giant: can't hibernate because cold/HD/MR + can't confuse because MR + can't invistab because sInv + can't dazzle because sInv = MC Battleaxe performing "U CAN'T STAB THIS"!!! naaa-nana-na, na-na, nana, nana, nana - CAN'T STAB THIS!
and into wrote:Regardless, enemies that can be dazzled should all have the same level of stab vulnerability. Categorically. How often and how much damage you deal with stabbing is complicated enough already, and it would be difficult and clunky to communicate "this particular type of enemy can be dazzled, but is less vulnerable to stabbing than all the other enemies that can be dazzled," and this is really bad information to keep opaque for (hopefully?) obvious reasons...
This doesn't equate with "sInv monsters can't be dazzled" in any way or manner.
EDIT: Battleaxe. MC Battleaxe.