# Visions of Avarice trivializes melee encounters?



## kerbarian (May 30, 2009)

Visions of Avarice is a new wizard daily 5 in Arcane Power.  It creates a one-square zone (sustain minor) that lets you make a minor-action attack each round.  The attack is a burst 5 from the zone that pulls enemies 3 squares towards the zone and then, if they're in or adjacent to the zone, immobilizes them (save ends).  So it effectively immobilizes within a burst 4.

It only targets enemies, and it's a huge burst, so it's easy to hit lots of creatures with it.  Once they're hit and immobilized, it's extremely difficult for them to break free.  They need to make their save, but then the wizard gets another chance to re-immobilize them before they can act.  It's an attack vs. will, which is often low for melee creatures.  If they have a 55% chance to save and then a 30% chance to be missed by the wizard's repeated attack, that's a 16.5% chance to break free.  That means that, on average, they'll be immobilized for six rounds, which is probably the whole rest of the fight.

Is there anything about this that I'm reading incorrectly?  Does anyone have experience with this power being used in their games, and was it a problem?


----------



## shadowoflameth (May 30, 2009)

*Immediate Reactions*

Remember that a character only gets one immediate action per round. If I am understanding the power description, the wizards attempt to immobilize a foe anew is an immediate action.


----------



## im_robertb (May 30, 2009)

I think what Shadow means is that a character only gets one minor action per round. For the wizard to sustain this power, it takes a minor action, and then it takes a separate minor action to make the attack. This means that the wizard is either not moving, or not making any other attack. It is a daily power, too. 

Also, it has more uses than for screwing over melee creatures. Grab a bunch of artillery, pull them towards the center, and it makes it that much easier for the defender to keep them all occupied.


----------



## Kamai (May 31, 2009)

Minor sustain+minor attack=either no attacking or no moving.  To keep locking the enemy, the wizard needs to keep using those two actions.  At the same time, 1 or 2 misses can have the creatures raining on the wizard's parade, and then the wizard will have to choose between keeping the attacks up, and getting away from the couple that get loose, and the defender probably can't keep them marked because they keep getting pulled away into the mob.  This power seems like it could quickly become suicide against more than about 3 or 4 enemies, because your strikers aren't likely to wander in that mob, and your defenders may think about the same.


----------



## keterys (May 31, 2009)

Last I checked, nullifying 20-60% of the combat is well worth two minor actions a round from one character.

That said, the crazy necrotic daze zone from Dragon at daily 5 still seems better, and frankly Stinking Cloud is still pretty badass.


----------



## Starfox (May 31, 2009)

The general idea seems to add some real control to Wizard dailies; I think this is a good thing, considering how bad the Wizard's reputation currently is.

it is just sad that old standbys like Web and Fireball are no longer good spells. They used to be a legacy of 1ed and retained their power when everything else was downgraded. Now, they were the first powers created, and the wizard is on an upwards power curve, making them obsolete already. It's kind of sad, really.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 31, 2009)

what about material components to increase power of fireball?

I don´t have adventurers vault, but i could imagine rituals to make your bat guano and sulfur into a component which adds a bit of damage to fireball...


----------



## Stalker0 (May 31, 2009)

My wizard used this in a fight recently, combining it with his orb, spell focus, the phrenic crown, and a +3 earthroot staff.

The fight was an eidolon, a big spider, and waves of 40 minions in 10 minion bundles.

He kept 80% of the minions, the spider, and the eidolon on permanent lockdown the whole fight. The eidolon had a -10 to his saves, so only on a 20 could he break free. The spider had a -6, but after his successful save he was attacked again on teh wizard's turn and the immobilized was reapplied.

Its a heck of a lot better than web


----------



## Pickles JG (May 31, 2009)

Stalker0 said:


> Its a heck of a lot better than web




Sounds cool. It also highlights the difficulty in creating control effects. They travel a narrow path between too weak & making encounters trivial.  This one sounds pretty good - you still have to kill the enemies so unless you are the vaunted all ranged party they will get to fight back just in manageable chunks.


----------



## keterys (May 31, 2009)

You don't have to be all ranged. You can just tell melee to stay out of reach, look at the DM and go 'So, yeah, do we win already?' and if not, make the rolls to crush the enemies while they can't do anything.

It's a bit of a flaw with melee-only enemies in general, though.


----------



## Regicide (May 31, 2009)

Pickles JG said:


> Sounds cool. It also highlights the difficulty in creating control effects. They travel a narrow path between too weak & making encounters trivial.  This one sounds pretty good - you still have to kill the enemies so unless you are the vaunted all ranged party they will get to fight back just in manageable chunks.




  The problem isn't control effects, the problem is they completely busted every single one of them by continuing to add more ways to stack save penalties.  This despite day 1 complaints on how busted sleep could be made due to this problem.


----------



## keterys (May 31, 2009)

Step 1: Make penalties not stack
Step 2: Make rolls of 15+ always succeed at saves

That probably covers most problems.


----------



## Gunpowder (May 31, 2009)

keterys said:


> Step 1: Make penalties not stack
> Step 2: Make rolls of 15+ always succeed at saves
> 
> That probably covers most problems.




or just make the orb affect only one saving throw, so it is like the other implements that affect only one roll.


----------



## satori01 (Jun 1, 2009)

Gunpowder said:


> or just make the orb affect only one saving throw, so it is like the other implements that affect only one roll.




Orb of Imposition _does_ only effect 1 person.  The "Save vs I win" combo that Stalker described requires the following:

1) At least be 11th level as Spell Focus is a Paragon feat (and adds -2 penalty vs saves)

2) Have a High Wisdom score...which depending upon your Stat Generation method, will impact other areas of the game, ie Low STR, CHA etc

3) Requires 2 very specific Magic Items from Adventurer's Vault.

Which means that if you play in a group where in general, the players do not: make their own items, buy every splat book to scour for every possible advantage they can find, and take treasure as it is given to them......this problem will not really arise in your game.

If you play with a horde of Min/Maxing Powergamers with an abundance of disposable income...then you might want to plan for it.


The sad part is the system itself almost requires this level of penalty stacking....when Solos have a +5 bonus to saves, you best have quite a few stacking penalties to even bother to use a Daily with an effect based off a Saving Throw on a Solo.   The flip side is the Solo will probably have a chance but the "yard trash" with him will fail.

It is also an Artefact of the system, that a Level 5 Daily has an effect that is unique enough, that conceivably a player may keep that power as opposed to trading up to higher level Dailies.

Stalker, if I may ask, how does your DM contend with you "Save vs I win" combos, or has he or she put a hit out on you already?


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 1, 2009)

kerbarian said:


> Is there anything about this that I'm reading incorrectly?  Does anyone have experience with this power being used in their games, and was it a problem?




I haven't used it, but there are ways to water it down a little.

For one, have some creatures with ranged attacks in all of your difficult encounters (i.e. the encounters where the PC Wizard would use a Daily). The immobilize will not adversely affect them too much. If melee PCs come into attack them, then they are not as harmed by the effect since they can melee back.

Also, target the Wizard with conditions. A Daze will force the Wizard to either give up the illusion, or use a Minor Action to maintain it, hence, giving foes a chance to escape. Stunning the Wizard is perfect, but most monsters do not stun.

Finally, many of the creatures that escape (and even the ones that do not escape, but have ranged attacks) should focus their attacks on the Wizard. An unconscious Wizard cannot sustain this power.


I really dislike this power, not because of how potent it is. I dislike it because it's illogical. A foe gets immobilized because it wants to seize treasure. WT? If the foe is so enamored by treasure, it shouldn't get any actions, not be immobilized. And how about Oozes? Why would they be enamored by treasure? The power is just badly designed all around IMO.

WotC really horked up illusions in 4E. A high percentage of the Illusion spells are nonsensical or are too potent or have easy ways to overcome or whatever. It's like they put the Apprentice Designer on Illusions and didn't check his work.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Jun 1, 2009)

Kamai said:


> Minor sustain+minor attack=either no attacking or no moving. To keep locking the enemy, the wizard needs to keep using those two actions.




Well, no.  You explicitly get to attack as part of the Sustain.  It's written into the spell text.  So all of that other stuff you wrote doesn't apply.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 1, 2009)

satori01 said:


> Stalker, if I may ask, how does your DM contend with you "Save vs I win" combos, or has he or she put a hit out on you already?




I'm the DM

This combo has recently just arrived in my game, so right now I'm playing it out and allowing it as is. My wizard player has craft magic item, and so there is no reason he cannot have the items...nor do I consider adventurer's vault a big splatbook, the core books have way too few magic items.

Last time I used a solo I put with it a deva legionaire (MM2). The deva has the ability to take a condition from an ally. My solo razor hydra got the sleep combo of death, and the deva took it. The deva was coup de graced into nothingness, but it let the hydra survive the fight.

The biggest part of the combo is actually the earthroot staff, which provides a -3 saving throw penalty...and that's without the orb. On the flip side it doesn't do any critical damage, which we are starting to notice is actually a major aspect for a wizard, who has lots of attacks and tends to crit frequently.


----------



## bganon (Jun 1, 2009)

Wolfwood2 said:


> Well, no.  You explicitly get to attack as part of the Sustain.  It's written into the spell text.  So all of that other stuff you wrote doesn't apply.




I don't think you're reading it correctly.  It's "sustain minor: the zone persists.  When you sustain the power, you can repeat the attack as a minor action".  The minor action to repeat the attack is in addition to the minor action used for the sustain. If it were the same action, it would say so.

And to KarinsDad re: oozes:

The "treasure" and "avarice" bits are all just fluff text.  The mechanics are simply that it's an illusion that pulls and potentially immobilizes creatures.  The illusion itself could just as easily be a huge slab of rotting meat.  So you can play it two ways:

1. All oozes have blindsight and tremorsense anyway, so you could just rule that they're not generally fooled by illusions.
2. You could allow it if the player can describe an illusion that would be enticing to the creatures affected.

Maybe it's because I mostly ignore flavor text and even names of powers, but I don't really see a big problem.  I think it'd be a lot less satisfying to create an "illusionist" build and then gimp it versus a wide variety of creatures.


----------



## keterys (Jun 1, 2009)

Everything has a reason to want to go somewhere - usually it might be to attack a PC, but maybe it's giving them a vision that the PC is over there. And extra juicy. And vulnerable. Or maybe it's something to mate with. Or that one color of prismatic puce they can't resist.

Remember that by core rules (Player's Handbook, early on in the power section) the flavor text is purely flavor text and may be completely replaced at the whim of the player with anything else appropriate. Doing so is not only a good idea in some cases, but can make the game more fun.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 1, 2009)

Stalker0 said:


> The biggest part of the combo is actually the earthroot staff, which provides a -3 saving throw penalty...and that's without the orb. On the flip side it doesn't do any critical damage, which we are starting to notice is actually a major aspect for a wizard, who has lots of attacks and tends to crit frequently.



Personally, I would tie ongoing effects to the implement that was actually used to cast the spell. So I wouldn't let the Orb and the Earthroot Staff stack.

But that might just be a _fine_ houserule.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 1, 2009)

keterys said:


> Everything has a reason to want to go somewhere - usually it might be to attack a PC, but maybe it's giving them a vision that the PC is over there. And extra juicy. And vulnerable. Or maybe it's something to mate with. Or that one color of prismatic puce they can't resist.
> 
> Remember that by core rules (Player's Handbook, early on in the power section) the flavor text is purely flavor text and may be completely replaced at the whim of the player with anything else appropriate. Doing so is not only a good idea in some cases, but can make the game more fun.




Still lame.

The default rule is that affected foes KNOWS what is happening to them. So, how come the foe does not know that it is affected by an illusion?

In a combat, nobody should want to stay "rooted to one spot". And once the foe knows that he was affected by an illusion (by making a save for example), he shouldn't be "fooled again" in the same combat by the same effect from the same spell.

But, the foe is "not fooled" with 4E illusions. They are not really illusions. They are real effects. They are real conditions. It's not illusory in any way, shape or form.

Illusions are all game mechanics now and no fluff. You don't fake out foes with them, you just throw a condition on them. The entire "the PC decides what the illusion is and the DM decides if it works" (even using rolls to do this) is gone. It's now just a condition like any other magic.

Yes, one can handwave it away and say (like you did) the foe sees something in its mind that causes it to act that way, but that is bogus too. In a similar situation, the same creature could act differently. Instead of moving towards a spot, it might want to move away for some reason. Exact same stimulus. But, that doesn't happen because illusions are just game mechanics now, no different than any other Slide or Push or whatever.

Cause Fear is how mental illusions should work. The NPC decides where it goes based on the NPC (i.e. DM decides based on the logic of how the NPC works), not based on the spell. The NPC could run away to the right or away to the left or straight away with Cause Fear. That doesn't happen with illusions.

Whatever. They gave it the name Illusions, but it's anything but that.


----------



## Regicide (Jun 1, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Illusions are all game mechanics now and no fluff.




  The entire game is all mechanics and no fluff.  From unconscious sleep spells to tripping oozes to dying unconscious people who suddenly stop bleeding to death because a warlord shouts "hurrah!"

  My main beef with illusions though is Illusory Ambush.  Did they really need yet another way to drop the enemy's damage output as an at-will?


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 1, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Still lame.
> 
> The default rule is that affected foes KNOWS what is happening to them. So, how come the foe does not know that it is affected by an illusion?
> 
> ...




I know every time I hear certain songs, they will get stuck in my head for a long time (AKA "ear-worms").  I know this, for sure.  And yet, they still get stuck in my head every time I hear them, even with that foreknowledge.  That is how this kind of illusion works.  Just because you know it is an illusion, that does not mean you "won't be fooled" by this kind of thing. They are the ear-worms of the illusion school of magic.

So the player can describe the effect, and the mechanics behind it decide the result, but that does not make it any less an illusion which the player describes, and the DM can still adjust things based on the description (and the rules allow for such an adjustment).

I get that you don't like a lot of aspects of 4e.  But, I also think with some more imaginative effort on your part, you could come up with ways for the rules to work with the fluff you are looking for.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Jun 1, 2009)

bganon said:


> I don't think you're reading it correctly. It's "sustain minor: the zone persists. When you sustain the power, you can repeat the attack as a minor action". The minor action to repeat the attack is in addition to the minor action used for the sustain. If it were the same action, it would say so.




All I can say is, to me it's obviously refering to the same minor action.  If it weren't, there would be no need to sustain the power to repeat the attack.

I suppose CustServ must rule!


----------



## keterys (Jun 1, 2009)

The second minor action to attack being after the sustain minor prevents someone who is, say, dazed, from making the attack then _not_ sustaining it. I have seen at least one other example of a power that had a sustain, then had a different action under the sustain to attack (it was a sustain minor and a standard to do the attack, though I don't recall which power it was)

If the quote given for the wording is correct, then the attack is not part of the sustain by RAW. RAI? Meh, not worth arguing


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 1, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> I get that you don't like a lot of aspects of 4e. But, I also think with some more imaginative effort on your part, you could come up with ways for the rules to work with the fluff you are looking for.




I get it. If someone handwaves away the stupidity and pretends that they are 10 years old again, the spell works (btw, this "too much imagination" comment was just as insulting as your "lack of imagination" comments about me).

But, the players at my table are adults. Adults for whom some stupid rules jar.

Just because the word illusion is put into a power does not mean that it seems like an illusion in the game. Visions of Avarice seems more like telekinesis than illusion. You are pulled and held in this location does NOT sound like an illusion at all.

I've read over the illusion spells and very few of them seem (i.e. feel) like illusions, even mental illusions. Yup, anyone can put the rationalization in if forced to do so. It would just be better if one wasn't forced to do that.

And btw, I like many aspects of the game system. It doesn't feel like DND to me, but I like playing the game. This happens to be an area where I think they dropped the ball. They had nearly a year to come up with cool illusion design and they fubared. IMO.



			
				keterys said:
			
		

> Remember that by core rules (Player's Handbook, early on in the power section) the flavor text is purely flavor text and may be completely replaced at the whim of the player with anything else appropriate. Doing so is not only a good idea in some cases, but can make the game more fun.




Just FYI, the effects portion of the spell states that is illusory treasure, not just the flavor portion.



> Effects: The power's area becomes a zone of illusory treasure...


----------



## Nail (Jun 1, 2009)

Wolfwood2 said:


> All I can say is, to me it's obviously refering to the same minor action.  If it weren't, there would be no need to sustain the power to repeat the attack.




These sorts of mistakes are easy to do.  Don't feel bad; just read over the text of the power (slowly) again.

For reference:
	
	



```
Effect: The power's area becomes a zone of illusory
treasure that lasts until the end of your next turn. Once
per turn, you can make the following attack, using the
zone as the origin square.
    Minor Action           Close burst 5
    Target: Each enemy in burst
    Attack: Intelligence vs. Will
    Hit: The zone pulls the target 3 squares. A target that ends
         this movement within the zone or adjacent to the zone is
          immobilized (save ends).
Sustain Minor: The zone persists. When you sustain the
power, you can repeat the attack as a minor action.
```
See how the indents work?  Look at the effect: what is the "following attack" you get to make?  What action does it take to make that attack?


----------



## DreamChaser (Jun 1, 2009)

keterys said:


> The second minor action to attack being after the sustain minor prevents someone who is, say, dazed, from making the attack then _not_ sustaining it. I have seen at least one other example of a power that had a sustain, then had a different action under the sustain to attack (it was a sustain minor and a standard to do the attack, though I don't recall which power it was)




Flaming Sphere...sustain minor, attack standard.

DC


----------



## kerbarian (Jun 1, 2009)

I just thought of a way to slightly mitigate this power: heal checks.  If you have a big pile of melee guys all immobilized next to each other, they can spend their standard actions making heal checks to try to grant each other extra saves.  Anyone who's granted a save before their turn (and makes it) gets to move away.

It doesn't help all that much, though.  It should be pretty easy to position the zone so that you can pull in 2 or 3 enemies and not have them end up adjacent to each other (on the corners of the zone), so they'd be out of heal check range.

I'm trying to think of some way creatures with reach could help each other even if they're not adjacent, but I'm not coming up with anything.  You can only bull rush an adjacent creature.  You can grab a creature within your reach, but then there's no way to pull it closer if you can't move yourself.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 2, 2009)

kerbarian said:


> It creates a one-square zone (sustain minor) that lets you make a minor-action attack each round.  The attack is a burst 5 from the zone that pulls enemies 3 squares towards the zone and then, if they're in or adjacent to the zone, immobilizes them (save ends).  So it effectively immobilizes within a burst 4.






Stalker0 said:


> My wizard used this in a fight recently, ...
> The fight was an eidolon, a big spider, and waves of 40 minions in 10 minion bundles.
> 
> He kept 80% of the minions, the spider, and the eidolon on permanent lockdown the whole fight.



 So, let me add this up: .8 * 40 + 1 + 1 = 34 creatures.  Now, exactly how did they all fit into 9 squares (zone + adjacent squares)?  Or, is there some key piece of the power that contradicts the OP?


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 2, 2009)

Infiniti2000 said:


> So, let me add this up: .8 * 40 + 1 + 1 = 34 creatures.  Now, exactly how did they all fit into 9 squares (zone + adjacent squares)?  Or, is there some key piece of the power that contradicts the OP?




Note I said 40 minions in 10 minion bundles. Avarice would get the vast majority of the minions, and then they would be killed by a variety of unspeakable means.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 2, 2009)

Stalker0 said:


> Note I said 40 minions in 10 minion bundles. Avarice would get the vast majority of the minions, and then they would be killed by a variety of unspeakable means.



  I guess I have no idea what a minion bundle is.  But, even allowing for the maximum number, you could hit 7 minions and the other two monsters and then the remaining 33 minions (bundled or not) would simply avoid the area.  7/33 is not a vast majority.  Anyway, I'm not specifically harping on your point but not having the book I was wondering if I'm missing something.  So far, this power does not seem to be exceedingly strong like some people are claiming.  It might landlock a few creatures (which would make it seem strong if used against a solo perhaps) but that's no stronger IMO than other, lower level dailies.


----------



## Colmarr (Jun 2, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> I get it. If someone handwaves away the stupidity and pretends that they are 10 years old again, the spell works (btw, this "too much imagination" comment was just as insulting as your "lack of imagination" comments about me).
> 
> But, the players at my table are adults. Adults for whom some stupid rules jar.




Does it help to think that "illusion" in 4e and the 3e term "compulsion" are largely synonymous?

Because to my mind they are. A lot of the 4e illusion spells border on, if not cross into, effects that would have been compulsions in 3e.

If you look at it from that perspective, Visions of Avarice (and a lot of the other illusion spells) makes a lot more sense.

P.S. I suspect you will then have issues as to why oozes and mindless undead are effected by illusions/compulsions, which is a valid question. My personal answer is "I don't care - if the world is strange enough to have oozes and mindless undead, it's strange enough for them to be affected by illusions", but I think the in-game answer revolves around the animus (being the force that moves their body) that all creatures have. I don't have the book, but I think the animus is discussed in Wizards Presents: Worlds and Monsters.


----------



## OchreJelly (Jun 2, 2009)

Colmarr said:


> Does it help to think that "illusion" in 4e and the 3e term "compulsion" are largely synonymous?
> 
> Because to my mind they are. A lot of the 4e illusion spells border on, if not cross into, effects that would have been compulsions in 3e.
> 
> ...




This.  Illusion magic has always sat very closely to charm / compulsion magic, from a concept / fluff standpoint.  Most people have no problem wrapping their heads around the idea of mental compulsions causing foes to behave in ways they wouldn't.  It just takes a bit of a leap to say the same for illusions.  For me, it's enough to say "it's magic!".  But really there's plenty of examples in folklore of protagonists not heading danger to chase after "the shiny" (Will-o-wisps, leprechaun gold etc.).  If it's still problematic I would say add the charm keyword to all illusions and be done with it.  It likely wouldn't cause any balance issues.  

In general I prefer this approach over having half the creatures in the MM being immune to mind affecting / illusion spells.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 2, 2009)

Wolfwood2 said:


> All I can say is, to me it's obviously refering to the same minor action.  If it weren't, there would be no need to sustain the power to repeat the attack.






DreamChaser said:


> Flaming Sphere...sustain minor, attack standard.




Or Bigby's Icy Grasp: sustain minor (with attack), move to move the hand, standard to attack a new target.

If a spell includes some effect as part of the sustain, it will specifically call it out.  For example, Levitate specifically calls out that the move/VTOL is part of the Sustain Move.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 2, 2009)

Infiniti2000 said:


> I guess I have no idea what a minion bundle is.  But, even allowing for the maximum number, you could hit 7 minions and the other two monsters and then the remaining 33 minions (bundled or not) would simply avoid the area.  7/33 is not a vast majority.  Anyway, I'm not specifically harping on your point but not having the book I was wondering if I'm missing something.  So far, this power does not seem to be exceedingly strong like some people are claiming.  It might landlock a few creatures (which would make it seem strong if used against a solo perhaps) but that's no stronger IMO than other, lower level dailies.




The minions come in in waves of 10. So the first minion wave comes in, and most are pulled in by the avarice and then destroyed by the party. Then a second wave of 10, a third, and finally a fourth wave for a total of 40 minions.


----------



## Wyrd One (Jun 2, 2009)

> > Note I said 40 minions in 10 minion bundles.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He just means there were 4 waves of 10 minions each, so 10 would come on the scene, get pulled into the zone, and killed, then another 10 would show up, etc...



> > Sustain Minor: the zone persists. When you sustain the power, you can repeat the attack as a minor action
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If it were referring to the same minor action it would simply say: "Sustain Minor: The zone persists *and *you can make another attack", instead it explicitly states "The zone persists."  Note the period, that is one complete thought.  Then after that it goes on to say: "When you sustain the power _(having spent a minor action to do so), _you can repeat the attack as a minor action."  It's a separate instance of the words "Minor Action", it's a second minor action to attack.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 2, 2009)

OchreJelly said:


> This.  Illusion magic has always sat very closely to charm / compulsion magic, from a concept / fluff standpoint.




Patterns and Phantasms sat closely to Enchantment.

Figments and Glamars were image effects that did not affect the mind at all and could be seen by everyone. No mind affecting.

Shadow illusions was weak version of reality. No mind affecting.



OchreJelly said:


> Most people have no problem wrapping their heads around the idea of mental compulsions causing foes to behave in ways they wouldn't.  It just takes a bit of a leap to say the same for illusions.  For me, it's enough to say "it's magic!".  But really there's plenty of examples in folklore of protagonists not heading danger to chase after "the shiny" (Will-o-wisps, leprechaun gold etc.).  If it's still problematic I would say add the charm keyword to all illusions and be done with it.  It likely wouldn't cause any balance issues.
> 
> In general I prefer this approach over having half the creatures in the MM being immune to mind affecting / illusion spells.




I would have no problem with this either if that were the rule.

It isn't.

I really think that the designers could have sat down and carefully figured this type of thing out.

If they wanted illusions to be compulsion, fine. Do so. Protections vs. mind affects would then apply.

But they already have a Charm effect for that. So, why is an Illusion like Visions of Avarice doing a Charm effect without the Charm keyword?

The Illusions section of Arcane Power claims that it affects the foe's mind, but then there are no game mechanics for protecting against that.

Disguise Self is an illusion, but it appears to be a Figment or Glamer, not an Arcane Power mind affecting illusion.

The Monster Manual has immune to illusion monsters. Does that mean that the monsters are immune to the entire power, or are they still affected by psychic damage? Presumably, Psychic is not the same as Illusion. But, what part of a power is illusion and what part is psychic. Is psychic just the damage part and other conditions are illusion? Who knows? There are no set rules TMK.

How about the Insight skill (sensing an illusion) versus a mental illusion like Visions of Avarice? Where are the rules on this?

But from what I can tell for Arcane Power, they sort of, kind of, pulled the 3.5 Enchantment school of magic into the 3.5 Illusion school of magic (mostly Pattern / Phantasm) and then threw out some portion of the 3.5 Illusion school of magic (Figments / Glamers, and Shadowmagic, not completely, but partially) and then said "Done" without figuring out how that affects the rest of the game system.

They didn't even bother to compare Players Handbook Illusion magic with Arcane Power Illusion magic.

The former is Figment / Glamer type illusions and the latter is Patterns / Phantasms. How do they interact? Nobody knows.

It's a bit jarring and pretty lame that they didn't take the time out to come up with a clean comprehensive system. IMO. They ignored the Charm and Illusion keywords in the PHB and made up a new combined Charm/Illusion keyword called Illusion. But Illusion in Arcane Power is not the same as the Illusion keyword in the PHB.


Yup. A DM can make up his own rules on it. A DM can ignore it all (no charm in the illusion spell = no bonus to saves for an Eladrin).

I just think they dropped the ball big time. This could have been handled so much cleaner.


----------



## Gort (Jun 2, 2009)

To be honest, the problem here seems to be more that orb wizards prevent anyone from ever passing a saving throw, not that spells are overpowered.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 2, 2009)

What is this Figments, Glamer, and Phantasm stuff you are talking about? Why is that even relevant.

Shadowrun illusion magic always affected either the mind or created "physical" illusions - e.g. really bended light around and stuff like that. But enchantments themselves were actually Manipulation spells, which have no 3E D&D equivalent. 

Games can define and descibe magic differently. VIsions of Avarice is not a charm effect because it doesn't force you to act in a specific way. Instead it creates a specific illusion that guarantees you to act in a specific way. 
No difference in the effect, a big difference in what happens in the game.

I could use a Charm spell to fall in love with a random stranger.
I could alternative use a Illusion spell to disguise that random stranger in every way as the man or woman of your dreams. You would react pretty similar in either case.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 2, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Games can define and descibe magic differently. VIsions of Avarice is not a charm effect because it doesn't force you to act in a specific way. Instead it creates a specific illusion that guarantees you to act in a specific way.
> No difference in the effect, a big difference in what happens in the game.




Sorry, but bullhockey. 

Arcane Power explicitly states that Illusions are mind affecting. They DO force you to act in a specific way. The Illusion keyword in the PHB states nothing about mind affects.

This is a rules forum. The rules for Illusions in the PHB are concerned solely with images.

The rules for Charm in the PBH are concerned solely with compulsion.

There is no keyword concerned with mental compulsion powers outside of Charm.

The rules for Illusions in Arcane Power create this new system that does not follow the PHB rules, does not state how it changes those rules, does not state how it interacts with those rules.

Having a different type of Illusion magic than the 3.5 ruleset is totally fine.

Not defining how the new Arcane Power Illusion magic works with the 4E ruleset, not fine.

I am not complaining that they do not have figments in 4E. I am complaining that Arcane Power introduced a new type of Illusion without defining the rules for it.


If the designers do not want that to be a Charm effect, I'm ok with that.

But, define it. Explain how the mind influencing works and how to protect against it. Add magic items that allow creatures to not be affected by mind effecting Illusions, etc. Can the Insight skill be used to detect a mind affecting Illusion? Maybe. How does Psychic damage and Illusion work?

As is, the rules concerning Illusions are vague at best.

I'm talking about the rules, not a rationale to explain why the powers work the way they do.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I could use a Charm spell to fall in love with a random stranger.
> I could alternative use a Illusion spell to disguise that random stranger in every way as the man or woman of your dreams. You would react pretty similar in either case.




Err, no. You are adding concepts to the game system that are NOT defined as rules.

Do you rob a bank with billions of dollars in it, just because your dream is to be rich?

Do some people about to be hit by a car jump out of the way and others stand there and get hit like Deer caught in headlights? The image is the same.

If I am not magically compelled to do something, it doesn't matter what the image looks like. I may, or may not do what the caster of the Illusion wants me to do. Each creature will react in their own way.

You are adding a mental magical compulsion to Illusions that Illusions in the PHB do not have. In order to do that, the rules have to be defined.

Again, I am ok with that. I just want the rules for it.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 2, 2009)

Wyrd One said:


> He just means there were 4 waves of 10 minions each, so 10 would come on the scene, get pulled into the zone, and killed, then another 10 would show up, etc...



 Ah, so they were lemming minions.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 2, 2009)

Infiniti2000 said:


> Ah, so they were lemming minions.




Actually the minions were summoned into the fight, but after that died like lemmings


----------



## Starfox (Jun 3, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> You are adding a mental magical compulsion to Illusions that Illusions in the PHB do not have. In order to do that, the rules have to be defined.




Its exception based design. Each power does exactly what it says it does. There might be certain effects that give bonuses against Illusion, but other than that, these powers don't have much in common. If one illusion effect forces movement, that's just how it is. It is the effect of the power. Fear effects can force movement. Telekinetic effects force movement. Fire effects force movement. There is no real difference; its all effects. Certain effects tend to go with certain keywords, like slow with cold, but there is nothing forcing certain effects (like Dominate, for example) to use a certain keyword (such as charm). It is just very common.

The idea that each category of spells had to have their own rules is 3e. Insight seems specifically limited to Deception rituals; if you read their effects you'll notice references to Insight, but not in illusion powers.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 3, 2009)

Starfox said:


> Its exception based design. Each power does exactly what it says it does. There might be certain effects that give bonuses against Illusion, but other than that, these powers don't have much in common. If one illusion effect forces movement, that's just how it is. It is the effect of the power. Fear effects can force movement. Telekinetic effects force movement. Fire effects force movement. There is no real difference; its all effects. Certain effects tend to go with certain keywords, like slow with cold, but there is nothing forcing certain effects (like Dominate, for example) to use a certain keyword (such as charm). It is just very common.




This is a bit of a copout. This is sloppy design. There should be metarules on how powers are designed by designers.

When there are not metarules, then design bugs creep in.

I'll give you an example.

Battlerage Vigor Fighters can easily be immune or nearly immune to Minions. Why? Because the designer of BRV didn't take minions into account. They added a concept of gaining temporary hit points when getting hit and opps.

Ditto for not taking into account Insight when designing Illusion powers in Arcane Power.

Another example, not knowing if all aspects of an Illusion are ignored for a creature immune to Illusions. Does the Psychic damage still get through? Does the condition still get through? The Resistance rules do not apply to Immunities and the MM glossary definition leans slightly in the opposite direction, so each DM might rule differently.

Clear rules need to be defined, especially when a keyword is used for effects that it was never use for in earlier game material.



Starfox said:


> The idea that each category of spells had to have their own rules is 3e. Insight seems specifically limited to Deception rituals; if you read their effects you'll notice references to Insight, but not in illusion powers.




One of the things a PC can do at any time is tell the DM that he is wanting to use Insight to recognize an effect as Illusory. The DC is 15 + the effect's level. One cannot state that the rule does not exist if the power does not state that you can use it. Exception based design indicates that the skill can work unless the power states that it cannot.

So literally, the effect of every mental Illusion in Arcane Power can be detected as such with an Insight skill check.

That makes sense for Illusory Wall because it is just an image. It makes less sense for Visions of Avarice because the immobilized foe might make the skill check, know it is an illusion, but still be "mentally compelled" to be immobilized by a mental image. The creature could be immune to Charm and know it is an Illusion, but still be compelled.

When the designers do not take all game elements into account when designing new features, the game suffers.

The game especially suffers because WotC doesn't take the time to correct game design in errata and instead, stealths it into Character Builder, the Compendium, and future splat books.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 3, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Sorry, but bullhockey.
> 
> Arcane Power explicitly states that Illusions are mind affecting. They DO force you to act in a specific way. The Illusion keyword in the PHB states nothing about mind affects.
> 
> ...




I think you are seeing a "rules system" of classifications and categories that just doesn't exist and was never intended. 

I guess your first sentence says it best.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 3, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I think you are seeing a "rules system" of classifications and categories that just doesn't exist and was never intended.




So, you think the rules are crystal clear (having read the Immunity section of the MM) how Illusion Immunity works with Psychic/Illusion spells?


----------



## Lord Ernie (Jun 3, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> So, you think the rules are crystal clear (having read the Immunity section of the MM) how Illusion Immunity works with Psychic/Illusion spells?



Check out the Errata/Update/Whatever in DDI or the MM2 for this:



			
				MM2 said:
			
		

> Immune
> 
> A creature that is immune to a damage type (such as cold or fire), a condition (such as dazed or petrified), or another specific effect (such as disease or forced movement) is not affected by it. A creature that is immune to charm, fear, illusion, poison, or sleep is not affected by the nondamaging effects of a power that has that keyword. A creature that is immune to gaze is not affected by powers that have that keyword.



While I dislike stealth errata as a rule, this is a much needed clarification, and to me seems crystal clear.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 3, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> So, you think the rules are crystal clear (having read the Immunity section of the MM) how Illusion Immunity works with Psychic/Illusion spells?



I don't see how that is relevant to determine whether Visions of Avarice are "really" an illusion or are "mind-affecting" or "charm", "compulsion", "figment", "glamer" or whatever. 
Your "problem" seemed to be that the illusion caused forced movement or movement related effects and that you were considering this an effect appropriate for telekinesis or charms, not illusions, and you seemed to base it on certain assumptions on how this magic "should" work. But those assumptions seem not actually supported by the rules to me.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 3, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But those assumptions seem not actually supported by the rules to me.




Not by the new rules. 

The new rules explicitly state that Illusions can be mind affecting without adding in any rules to explicitly defend against that.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 3, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Not by the new rules.
> 
> The new rules explicitly state that Illusions can be mind affecting without adding in any rules to explicitly defend against that.



Explicitely?


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 3, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Explicitely?




I stand corrected.

It is a new concept based on the effects, not based on the explanation of the illusions. Visions of Avarice is a good example. Just because I see treasure (or food or whatever) as a monster does not mean that I should automatically want to go in that direction and not move while in combat. It's a mind deceiving power that also controls the mind.

This type of mind deception = mind control does not once occur in the PHB. It is a new concept.

Charm: *Mental* effects that control or *influence* the subject's actions.

Illusion: Powers that *deceive* the senses or the mind.

Deception does not mean control or influence. I think the powers are fine, they just (IMO) should have the Charm keyword on them so that creatures that are resistant to mental influence are resistant to ALL mental influence.

Having the BBEG who is resistant to mind effects suddenly not be resistant to them anymore because a new splat book came out is not cool.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 3, 2009)

To clarify - There is a difference between explicitly and implicitly, and I was wondering if there was actual a rule stating illusions are mind-affecting, because I would have missed it (that would be possible.)

So apparantly it is indeed not explicitely. If you want, you can file _Visions of Avarice_ with _Come and Get It_.


----------



## Nail (Jun 3, 2009)

Sorry, but could we spell "explicitly" and "implicitly" right?  Thanks.  I love the thread discussion, but that silent "e" you keep slipping in there ruins the versilimitude for me.  


[EDIT]...and FWIW, I agree with *Karinsdad*: the rules for illusions should make them separate from charms & compulsions.  Illusions should "trick" you into doing something, rather than *force* you to do something.

['NOTHER EDIT]Sorry KarinsDad!  Fixed.


----------



## bganon (Jun 3, 2009)

When a rogue uses a "false stumble" as part of Positioning Strike to slide an opponent, does this count as a mind-affecting effect?  Can the target make an Insight check to avoid it?

No, that would be silly.  All that's wrapped up in the Dex vs. Will attack.  The designers don't need to invent a whole combat sub-system of weaves and feints.  I don't really think Visions of Avarice is that much different.  The wizard makes an illusion, targets are pulled toward it.  Why?  Because they were too weak-willed.  Creatures immune to illusions won't be affected.  Creatures immune to charm can be.  I can easily imagine several interpretations for why this might be, but they don't really matter; mechanically the rules seem quite clear.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 3, 2009)

Nail said:


> Sorry, but could we spell "explicitly" and "implicitly" right?  Thanks.  I love the thread discussion, but that silent "e" you guys keep slipping in there ruins the versilimitude for me.




Fixed that for you. 



Nail said:


> [EDIT]...and FWIW, I agree with *Karinsdad*: the rules for illusions should make them separate from charms & compulsions.  Illusions should "trick" you into doing something, rather than *force* you to do something.




Thanks Nail. Sometimes I think I'm a lone voice in the wilderness.


----------



## jayphonic (Jun 3, 2009)

kerbarian said:


> Visions of Avarice is a new wizard daily 5 in Arcane Power.  It creates a one-square zone (sustain minor) that lets you make a minor-action attack each round.  The attack is a burst 5 from the zone that pulls enemies 3 squares towards the zone and then, if they're in or adjacent to the zone, immobilizes them (save ends).  So it effectively immobilizes within a burst 4.
> 
> It only targets enemies, and it's a huge burst, so it's easy to hit lots of creatures with it.  Once they're hit and immobilized, it's extremely difficult for them to break free.  They need to make their save, but then the wizard gets another chance to re-immobilize them before they can act.  It's an attack vs. will, which is often low for melee creatures.  If they have a 55% chance to save and then a 30% chance to be missed by the wizard's repeated attack, that's a 16.5% chance to break free.  That means that, on average, they'll be immobilized for six rounds, which is probably the whole rest of the fight.
> 
> Is there anything about this that I'm reading incorrectly?  Does anyone have experience with this power being used in their games, and was it a problem?




This thread has been hijacked.  I am providing a quote of the original post for reference.  Has anyone had experience with this spell in their campaigns?


----------



## Nail (Jun 3, 2009)

bganon said:


> When a rogue uses a "false stumble" as part of Positioning Strike to slide an opponent, does this count as a mind-affecting effect?  Can the target make an Insight check to avoid it?
> 
> No, that would be silly.  All that's wrapped up in the Dex vs. Will attack.



I agree the "tricking" can be wrapped up in the attack roll.  That's not what's wrong (IMO, anyway). The problem I have is that at least one of the effects of the attack (immobilized) isn't readily explained as "being tricked or deceived" (Illusion) => it's far more easily explained as "being compelled" (Charm).

Look, it's cool to have a Charm power.  It's cool to have an Illusion power.  ....And these powers should feel different from each other, mechanically and stylistically.  Make sense?

Put another way: How will the future Psion be different from the present Illusion-using wizard?  Where's the design-space they'll need to differentiate the two?


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 3, 2009)

Nail said:


> I agree the "tricking" can be wrapped up in the attack roll.  That's not what's wrong (IMO, anyway). The problem I have is that at least one of the effects of the attack (immobilized) isn't readily explained as "being tricked or deceived" (Illusion) => it's far more easily explained as "being compelled" (Charm).




I agree, the immobilize is more problematic than the slide. After moving next to the treasure that the ooze doesn't care about, the ooze is suddenly surrounded by salt and gets scared to move. Err, ok. 

Yeah, anything can be explained away if we throw enough at it or if we just ignore explanations and play rules only.


----------



## mikebr99 (Jun 3, 2009)

> Thanks Nail. Sometimes I think I'm a lone voice in the wilderness.



for what it's worth... I'm going to have to agree with you also kd. I don't have a problem with the spell necessarily if the flavour was re-written as more of a compulsion/lockdown effect... but the background info needs to be provided. They do need to fill 300 pages of many more new books before they start over with 5.0 though...

Mike


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 3, 2009)

Nail said:


> I agree the "tricking" can be wrapped up in the attack roll.  That's not what's wrong (IMO, anyway). The problem I have is that at least one of the effects of the attack (immobilized) isn't readily explained as "being tricked or deceived" (Illusion) => it's far more easily explained as "being compelled" (Charm).
> 
> Look, it's cool to have a Charm power.  It's cool to have an Illusion power.  ....And these powers should feel different from each other, mechanically and stylistically.  Make sense?
> 
> Put another way: How will the future Psion be different from the present Illusion-using wizard?  Where's the design-space they'll need to differentiate the two?






KarinsDad said:


> I agree, the immobilize is more problematic than the slide. After moving next to the treasure that the ooze doesn't care about, the ooze is suddenly surrounded by salt and gets scared to move. Err, ok.
> 
> Yeah, anything can be explained away if we throw enough at it or if we just ignore explanations and play rules only.






mikebr99 said:


> for what it's worth... I'm going to have to agree with you also kd. I don't have a problem with the spell necessarily if the flavour was re-written as more of a compulsion/lockdown effect... but the background info needs to be provided. They do need to fill 300 pages of many more new books before they start over with 5.0 though...
> 
> Mike




Have any of you had experience with the Visions of Avarice power in actual play? If so, what was your experience? Did you feel it trivialized melee encounters?


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> Have any of you had experience with the Visions of Avarice power in actual play? If so, what was your experience? Did you feel it trivialized melee encounters?




I have not seen it in actual play, but I do suspect that if any of my more tactically capable players was running a Wizard, he would most likely take it.

It will often successfully hit slightly more than half of the foes per round (due to the defense being Will) and I do think foes will try to get away fairly quickly once they find out what it does, but it is real sticky. Saves are made at the end of the turn, so anyone caught will tend to stay caught. For example, if one has 10 foes in the area (25 squares), one will typically hit 6 of them. Of these 6, 3 will make the save, 3 will fail. Of the 3 that make the save, there is a good chance that 2 will be caught again before they can act. Plus, any of the original 4 that were missed have a chance of getting caught if they did not leave the area. So after 2 rounds there is a good chance that half (or more if the 4 did not leave) of the foes will still be immobilized. In this example (which I purposely made a bit larger to make the math obvious), unless the foes have ranged attacks, 6 foes lost their actions in round 1, 5 foes lost their actions in round 2, and more actions are lost in latter rounds. Action economy-wise, this is huge.

Throw some Slow or Knock down effects in there and most of these guys could be toast. And with many of the bad guys clumped together, can anyone say Fireball (or even round after round of Scorching Burst)?

One of the issues is that it only affects enemies. Presumably, that is balanced by it not doing any damage, but that's still real useful. I could easily see an n+2 encounter where the Wizard casts this one Daily and everyone else only uses Encounter powers and does focus fire on one mobile foe at a time.


----------



## ST (Jun 4, 2009)

I don't doubt that one can come up with a hypothetical situation where almost any power that does something more than {X damage, apply effect} sounds broken. 

All the ones that came up when 4e came out also involved Orb Mastery, interestingly enough. 

(Although as was said back on the first page, the hypothetical described here, using one implement to apply the effect and another to sustain it, just seems nonsensical to me.)


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 4, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> I have not seen it in actual play, but I do suspect that ...




Cool.  It would be great if your group happens to use this power a few times, if you could report your experiences.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> Cool.  It would be great if your group happens to use this power a few times, if you could report your experiences.




So are you trying to say that only actual experiences count? We cannot have a rational and informed discussion without actual experiences?


----------



## Nail (Jun 4, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> Cool.  It would be great if your group happens to use this power a few times, if you could report your experiences.



 My group(s) have also not used it....it did "just come out" aftre all...and no one in any of my groups are over 4th level.   (What's up wit' that?)

But as soon as a wizard in one of my groups gets to 5th level, you can bet yer bottom dollar that I'll strongly suggest this Daily.  If I get any direct experience, I'll post it.

Until that time, I'll have to be content with just thinking through how this power would work.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 4, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> So are you trying to say that only actual experiences count? We cannot have a rational and informed discussion without actual experiences?



I can't speak for Mistwell, but yes, I think so. If you want to "decide" the matter, you need actual play experiences. We can exchange our arguments for or against it all day, but appparantly we do not reach a concensus, so we need actual data from multiple sources. 

Well, we don't really need it, because how important is the matter really?


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I can't speak for Mistwell, but yes, I think so. If you want to "decide" the matter, you need actual play experiences. We can exchange our arguments for or against it all day, but appparantly we do not reach a concensus, so we need actual data from multiple sources.




I agree with this in many cases. Compare two powers, they are about the same, there are some slight differences, yeah, we better go check it out and even there, we will get discrepencies.

To me, this is a pretty obvious case though. If it looks like a horse and sounds like a horse and smells like a horse, I'm not going to think it is a zebra.

In fact, most of the "Is this too powerful" types questions on the board, if it isn't too powerful or is only slightly powerful, people post some pretty good reasons quickly as to why the power or feat or whatever is not too powerful.

I didn't see that here. People like keterys said:



> Last I checked, nullifying 20-60% of the combat is well worth two minor actions a round from one character.




Stalker said from actual playtest experience (using an Earthroot staff):



> He kept 80% of the minions, the spider, and the eidolon on permanent lockdown the whole fight.




So in this case, I disagree. The people who think it is not too powerful should playtest it and tell us why it isn't. What are the mitigating factors that prevent a large number of foes from not being locked down?

The rest of us should feel free to discuss it without people telling us that our opinions do not count without actual playtest experience.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 5, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> The people who think it is not too powerful should playtest it and tell us why it isn't. What are the mitigating factors that prevent a large number of foes from not being locked down?




This issue for me is not if this locks down a lot of people; the issue is if its bad that the wizard can lock down lots of people. This is after all what the class is all about; control.


----------



## Nail (Jun 5, 2009)

...at 5th level.  Not Paragon, Not Epic: 5th level, once per day, for the entire combat.

Smells a bit fishy, eh?


----------



## keterys (Jun 5, 2009)

Nah, it's cool. Just compare to Web, which is the same level and does almost the same thing and... 

Wait, why are you laughing?


----------



## shmoo2 (Jun 5, 2009)

Nail said:


> ```
> Effect: The power's area becomes a zone of illusory
> treasure that lasts until the end of your next turn. Once
> per turn, you can make the following attack, using the
> ...




How would you work out the actions for Mordenkainen’s Sword?
It seems like that power actually does include the attack in the sustain minor action, though it will probably require a move action to move adjacent to the target as well.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 5, 2009)

Nail said:


> Smells a bit fishy, eh?




Smells like a horse.

Wait, I already said that. Nevermind.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 5, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> So are you trying to say that only actual experiences count? We cannot have a rational and informed discussion without actual experiences?




No.

I am trying to bring the thread back to the questions the OP asked.  Since he reemphasized recently that he wants to hear from folks who have experienced this spell in actual play, I thought I would encourage people to report any actual experiences.

We all know that theory and practice sometimes differ on these boards.  We've all seen people miscalculate the actual impact certain classes, feats, and powers have once the theory meets the gaming table.  So, when the OP says he is just interested in actual experience with a power, and then says it again, I think it's fair to back him up and try to encourage folks to report actual experiences.

Since I presume you have a regular game, and since you are interested in this topic, I was hoping you (and others) would try to throw this spell into one of your sessions, and report back.  That's all.


----------



## keterys (Jun 5, 2009)

Remember... you can always throw it on an NPC, too.


----------



## cdrcjsn (Jun 5, 2009)

Immobilizing foes is great against certain foes.

But even the eidolon/spider/minion encounter mentioned, a stinking cloud would've destroyed all minions without the need for an attack roll and done significant damage to the other two.

The problem with this spell in the Ediolon and the spider encounter is that they are melee only creatures.

What's the percentage of combats where you only have creatures with only one style of attack?

Locking down foes who can teleport, or have both ranged/melee attacks, or can pull creatures to them are not bothered by the spell at all.

It's a powerful spell, I agree.  An immobilize effect is worth quite a bit in terms of the math for calculating powers.  Does it trivialize encounters?  Yes, against encounters with only melee types, but not all encounters are like that.


----------



## keterys (Jun 5, 2009)

We were looking at the effects of immobilize in another thread at one point, and it's actually quite bothersome how effective immobilize is at heroic tier. At paragon less so, and at epic much less so.

But it's almost as bad as stunned (no combat advantage, and +2 to all defenses from total defense) for a startling number of creatures.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Jun 8, 2009)

I've used it twice in actual play.  There's no doubt it changes the terms of an encounter (as arguably a Daily should).  However, all foes so far have had either a ranged back-up attack or been paired with a leader-type who could move them out of the effect.


----------



## OchreJelly (Jun 8, 2009)

I don't know.  I've seen the wall spells used to great effect (WoF and Blade Barrier) and they are only a few levels higher.  

Wall spells tend to divide the battlefield by position.  This spell seems to divide the battlefield by role.  That is to say, artillery, controllers, and even skirmishers are less likely to be impacted by this spell (because they tend to be ranged attackers) than soldiers, brutes and lurkers.  

Arguably a controller daily should really shake-up the flow of the battlefield.


----------



## kerbarian (Jun 11, 2009)

Some data of my own:

It's been used twice in my campaign now.  The first time it was used late in the encounter, and the effect was mostly that it immobilized a nearly-full-health melee elite for the rest of the fight.  It never escaped and was unable to do anything useful for the rest of the encounter.

The second time it hit four melee enemies.  Two of them ended up adjacent to each other and one freed the other with a heal check, so one got away.  A ranged elite who wasn't in the area voluntarily went in to free another melee guy with a heal check.  The other two melee enemies never escaped.

So the first time it single-handedly took an elite out of the battle, and the second time it took out two creatures plus cost many more actions (probably two full rounds of the entire enemy force) in time spent immobilized or attempting heal checks to free the other two.

So far, no creature has ever escaped Visions of Avarice without the help of a heal check from an ally.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 11, 2009)

A great power, and actually not hard to thwart for a DM either.

Step 1)  Get a monster beside the wizard.

Step 2)  No really, that's about it.

The wizard has to spend two actions to use it, one of which triggers an OA from the monster.  The third action either has to get the wizard away from the monster, or is an attack, which also is a time OA can be used.

Two monsters adjacent to the wizard will pretty much guarantee that he'll have some hard choices to make if he wants to play Illusion Greedmaster today.

Sure, the monsters might have to -work- to get there to do it, but that's what controllers are about, and that is how it should be.


----------



## Trevelyan (Jun 11, 2009)

keterys said:


> Nah, it's cool. Just compare to Web, which is the same level and does almost the same thing and...
> 
> Wait, why are you laughing?



Web has some advantages. Visions takes a minnor action to sustain and a minor action to repeat the attack while Web is a fire and forget daily. PLus Web produces difficult terrain.

Whic is not to say that I wouldn't usually still rather have Visions, only that there are certain situations, most obviously when you have something else to sustain, when Web is a better bet.



DracoSuave said:


> A great power, and actually not hard to thwart for a DM either.
> 
> Step 1) Get a monster beside the wizard.
> 
> ...



Hardly, once you've cast the spell the minor to sustain doesn't trigger anything, and the attack is a close burst so doesn't provoke an OA.

I can play the experience card here having used Visions of Averice for the first time earlier this week. I'd say that there are a lot of variables involved, including the following:

Mix of monsters - melee vs ranged: Against ranged monsters the power is initially of limited use, but imobilising artillary allows you own melee types to get in close and pin them down without having to worry about the monsters shifting back and continuing to attack using ranged powers. Against melee monsters the situation is largely reversed in that you can initially take them out of the fight but sooner or later you are going to have to wade in and fight them. Flanking is much easier against an imobile foe, of course.

Mix of party - following on from a monster mix, the party mix is also significant. A mele heavy party won't gain any major advantage against melee monsters other than slightly better flanking potential, but could close down troublesome ranged monsters. Conversely, a ranged heavy party with find melee monsters easy to manage but gain nothing against artillary.

Overall, assuming a balanced party with a mix of melee and range and a similar mix of monsters, what Visions is really going to achieve is to let the party send the most effective members against the best choice of monsters (melee pinning aartillary and ranged attacking melee monsters) with greater ease. It's useful but not always major, especially given the luck of the dice. 

Terrain is the other major factor. Dumping Visions in the middle of dangerous terrain can result in a lot of extra damage. Casting the spell on a fighter who is using Rain of Steel is also quite amusing. I'm also sure it's not entirely a coincidence that Visions essentially takes two minor actions to keep a bunch of monsters pinned in a burst 1 radius while still leaving the wizard, often with a burst 1 at-will attack with a standard action to use that attack.

In the whole, though, I think that Stinking Clound is likely to be more effective in at least as many situations.


----------



## FunkBGR (Jun 12, 2009)

Hey, here's some suggestions for "fixing" this spell:
Remove the immobilize effect
Change the immobilize to dazed (end of monster's turn)
Have it affect creatures instead of enemies.

Honestly, I find it weird that the two 5th level dailies that are some of the only examples of Wizard's targetting enemies-only are more powerful than most other spells of that level. 

Is Wizards' perhaps trying to bump up the controller-y goodness of the Wizard? How do they stack up with other controllers' lvl 5 dailies? 

(I play PHB only, so I honestly don't know!)


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 13, 2009)

Trevelyan said:


> Hardly, once you've cast the spell the minor to sustain doesn't trigger anything, and the attack is a close burst so doesn't provoke an OA.




Are you -certain- Visions of Avarice is a Close power?  I don't have Arcane on me right now, but I remember it being an Area power when I last looked at it.  And 'repeating the attack' doesn't make the attack a Close attack, cause otherwise the power'd be 'Pull a lot of monsters onto the wizard' which would be, well, a much shorter discussion on its effectiveness.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 13, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Are you -certain- Visions of Avarice is a Close power?  I don't have Arcane on me right now, but I remember it being an Area power when I last looked at it.  And 'repeating the attack' doesn't make the attack a Close attack, cause otherwise the power'd be 'Pull a lot of monsters onto the wizard' which would be, well, a much shorter discussion on its effectiveness.




He's sure.

When originally cast, the power is Area 1. That provokes.

The minor action is Close Burst 5. That does not provoke.

The minor action has a different Attack Type than the standard action does.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 13, 2009)

K.  Just being sure about it.

Still.  There are ways to stop a wizard using this for his once per day breakfast.


----------



## bebarce (Jun 23, 2009)

I'm a human wizard and I absolutely love this spell. I combine it with an action point flaming sphere +3 (although you lose 1 spot since sphere occupies a square) to attack with my action surge on drop.

I also have the option to hold off on the flaming sphere to a second round, and use my action point for a minor in case I miss a pull (also get a +3 on each pull this way).

I also drop it next to or if possible in between main baddy + other. With this and my flaming sphere, I just hold everyone in one spot while continually doing damage to them. 

I use my immediate reactions (staff of defense, shield, wizards escape) in case someone is able to possibly not only break through my group, and break my defenses. Each round 3 minors go off.

Yesterday even without the use of flaming sphere, a loose straggler tried to hit me which allowed me to teleport (wizards escape) close enough to Flame Shroud, allowing ongoing damage. I used my remaining action to either move or cast other spells. I was able to control 8 mobs and the only damage to the party was done when hyenas exploded near my melee fighters.

Wizards rock!


----------



## Sebby (Jun 24, 2009)

*Play experience with Visions of Avarice*

In our game (now 11th level), it's been used 3 times.

There is no doubt, it is a very effective power. Simply put, it allows an encounter to be dealt with in smaller chunks. It's a divide and conquer power. You don't have to catch everyone for it to be effective. In fact, it hardly matters at all, as long as you catch about 50% in the initial attack, you're golden.

One use was in a 14th level encounter while we were 9th level. This was an encounter with a large number of n and n+1 level creatures, not with few but super-strong monsters. It made the encounter as easy as a same-level fight, but I must say that it is mostly because the spell caught almost every melee enemy in a nice cluster after they tried to overwhelm the ranger, who had made himself a very tempting target by going in first, ahead of the defender screen.

Edit: Another time we got lucky: we (unknowingly) cast it over an iced river that the enemies were just crossing to reach the wizard and ranger, and had no intention of staying on for good reason: everytime a creature took damage while on the ice, an undead corpse of some kind would break the ice, emerge and attack it. It was a slaughter.

We have a party that's also very good at taking advantage of it (although, this is unintended): many forced movement/teleport effects allow us to herd the enemies near the illusion so they can be attacked by it. Our striker is an archer ranger, making dealing with immobilized melee monsters a breeze.

Everytime, it was cast in a wide open space, giving the enemies plenty of room to avoid it or escape it if they saved. I think it would be absolutely brutal if it was cast in a restricted space or a strategic chokepoint.

Everytime, it also was very effective at "keeping in" the monsters initially affected. Very few escaped once caught. I can thus say that, at least in our small sample, KD's theoretical numbers do work out. Once, two rather large trolls escaped and immediately went for the wizard. He took a severe beating, true, but he answered by _Thunder Waving _both of them... back within 4sq of the zone where they promptly re-forgot about the wizard and went all "oh shiny!", again (to DM Mike's complete dismay, I might add).

In practice, countering the spell is possible, but hard for the DM, even with the proper "tools". When this effect is on the board, we know it's important. We'll have at least one of the defenders blocking for the wizard and we have ways to grant him out-of-sequence saves in case he gets stunned/dazed. We can even teleport him out of trouble if need be (both our defenders are swordmages). Plus, he's not so bad himself at evading trouble.

It is strong. Game breaking though? I don't think so. Up till now, we haven't used it on a group of monsters that was good at dealing with it, so it's hard to say. And our DM, admitedly, _could _be a better tactician.


----------



## Goumindong (Jun 24, 2009)

For most smart DM's this is not going to immobilize many creatures. Remember, it has a cap of 9 and the pull rules will often mean that you are unable to get a target you want to that area. Give your melee enemies some backup ranged attacks and your artillery some effects that imposing the dazing condition and you don't have much to fear. 

The dazing power isn't that good either [ranged enemies don't much care, melee enemies just charge, and the cloud does much more damage as well as stopping attacks and allowing the party to make stealth checks]


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 24, 2009)

Goumindong said:


> For most smart DM's this is not going to immobilize many creatures. Remember, it has a cap of 9 and the pull rules will often mean that you are unable to get a target you want to that area.




Considering most fights have 5 monsters...and often less with elites, then the cap to me doesn't come up that often (I'm not going to blow a daily to round up 9 minions when I can just scorching burst them).


----------



## Sebby (Jun 24, 2009)

Anyone has seen _Visions of Avarice _in action with an encounter reasonably built to counter it?


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 24, 2009)

Sebby said:


> Anyone has seen _Visions of Avarice _in action with an encounter reasonably built to counter it?




I have not, but then again I have I think the important point is this:

Why would a wizard use a daily in a fight that is designed to counter his daily?

A wizard is going to use avarice in a fight that is vulnerable to it, like big melee guys.


----------



## Sebby (Jun 24, 2009)

Stalker0 said:


> I have not, but then again I have I think the important point is this:
> 
> Why would a wizard use a daily in a fight that is designed to counter his daily?
> 
> A wizard is going to use avarice in a fight that is vulnerable to it, like big melee guys.




You have a good point.

Maybe, then, an encounter where it is not immediately obvious that VoA is a poor choice? That could happen. High Will defenses and teleport powers, for example, won't be apparent until used.


----------



## Trevelyan (Jun 24, 2009)

Stalker0 said:


> Why would a wizard use a daily in a fight that is designed to counter his daily?
> 
> A wizard is going to use avarice in a fight that is vulnerable to it, like big melee guys.



It's such an important point that I thought it worth repeating again. It's also the same point that I made in the parallel Grasp of the Grave thread.

Whenever people are assessing the utility of a given daily power, it should be a given that the situation lends itself to the power and hence the pwoer was at least moderately effective. If someone seriously started suggesting that they'd seen players regularly use powers in encounters where tehy did nothing, or worse still asked for examples of such, then I'd be worried.

More generally, I think we're seeing an emerging trend with wizard powers which was mentioned as early as the players preview booklet but has only started to become manifest with Arcane Power - it was a design premise that wizards would have potent daily powers, and those daily pwoers which can be sustained for an entire encounter fit the bill perfectly.


----------



## Wyrd One (Jun 24, 2009)

Goumindong said:


> Remember, it has a cap of 9 and the pull rules will often mean that you are unable to get a target you want to that area.



I believe neither of those points are true.

The initial power creates a zone, burst 1, within 10 squares, so a 3x3 zone of treasure.

The burst 5 attack originates from the created zone, not the wizard.  The important parts to note are that any target hit by the burst 5 is pulled 3 squares *toward the center of the zone*, and any target that ends that movement "within the zone or *adjacent to the zone* is immobilized".

So it's actually a 4x4 area of 16 squares where the enemies are immobilized.  Even enemies at the edge of the burst 5 will be pulled 3 squares and will end their movement adjacent to the 3x3 zone, and therefore be immobilized.


----------



## keterys (Jun 24, 2009)

Actually, all squares adjacent to the zone would be a 5x5 (burst 2). Does the burst 5 originate from the 3x3 or from the 1x1 at the center? Cause that's the difference between an 11 x 11 and a 13 x 13...


----------



## Sebby (Jun 24, 2009)

That's not correct in both cases. The zone created by _VoA _is 1 square (not a burst 1): the range line is "1 square within 10 squares". It's like _Cloud of Daggers_.

The VoA attack is a burst 5 originating from this 1 square zone, and pulls hit enemies 3 squares toward the zone.

To be immobilized, enemies have to end up in the 1 square zone or adjacent to it. That's 9 squares total where enemies get stuck.
Enemies at the range limit of the attack won't get pulled close enough to be immobilized.


----------



## keterys (Jun 24, 2009)

Okie, good - big difference between 1 square and all adjacent (ie, 3x3) and 3x3 and all adjacent 

Flying opponents would work well, too, since that gives you more possible squares, but... silly 3 dimensions.


----------



## BobTheNob (Jun 24, 2009)

Our mage hasnt got this (and maybe I should be thankful he doesnt!).

This does look like a little bit of a deal breaker. Whether it is OP or not I cant comment on as I havent had to GM as of yet. I will say though, its nice that they are actually thinking about the definition of the controller being about control instead of just big explosions!

One question. All a creature has to do is NOT get hit by the attack (Int vs Will) then use a move action to get clear of the zone (terrain permitting) and, to that creature, the spell becomes about as useful as condoms to the Pope, wouldnt it?


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 25, 2009)

BobTheNob said:


> Our mage hasnt got this (and maybe I should be thankful he doesnt!).
> 
> This does look like a little bit of a deal breaker. Whether it is OP or not I cant comment on as I havent had to GM as of yet. I will say though, its nice that they are actually thinking about the definition of the controller being about control instead of just big explosions!
> 
> One question. All a creature has to do is NOT get hit by the attack (Int vs Will) then use a move action to get clear of the zone (terrain permitting) and, to that creature, the spell becomes about as useful as condoms to the Pope, wouldnt it?




In open terrain the spell is not as useful, definately better with dungeon rooms and the like.

Of course, the team could try to knock a monster back in the area so he gets hit again.


----------



## Goumindong (Jun 25, 2009)

Stalker0 said:


> In open terrain the spell is not as useful, definately better with dungeon rooms and the like.
> 
> Of course, the team could try to knock a monster back in the area so he gets hit again.




Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Remember its often harder to pull when things get in the way of the "each square must be one closer"


----------



## Bast1ano (Aug 17, 2009)

*Looking for viable nerfs*

I've seen this used in my campaign three times now. It completely locked out all melée in those encounters. It's clearly overpowered. I don't see any of the dailies in the group (while very effective) contending with this one. I want my wizard to have fun locking down dangerous foes but this is too much of an easy button. It simply overshadows all other spell options. 

I'd like some more ideas on viable nerfs. If I cant come up with a good option that keeps the spell useful as a daily but doesn't ruin my encounters I'm going to have to remove it from my game and just refund the power to my player. Help!


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 17, 2009)

Don't stick all your enemies in one spot.  Mix up the attack groups so there's some ranged supporting some melee.  

Use minions to clog up squares.


----------



## Trevelyan (Aug 17, 2009)

Bast1ano said:


> I've seen this used in my campaign three times now. It completely locked out all melée in those encounters. It's clearly overpowered. I don't see any of the dailies in the group (while very effective) contending with this one. I want my wizard to have fun locking down dangerous foes but this is too much of an easy button. It simply overshadows all other spell options.
> 
> I'd like some more ideas on viable nerfs. If I cant come up with a good option that keeps the spell useful as a daily but doesn't ruin my encounters I'm going to have to remove it from my game and just refund the power to my player. Help!



What's so overpowered about requiring a wizad to use two minor actions per turn just to stand a reasonable chance of keeping a bunch of melee enemies stationary? It's effective if used well, but it is a daily power which does no damage and eats actions to keep in play. And the final outcome is only that the party defeats an encounter which they were presumably expected to defeat anyway, only they do it by expending a daily power resource rather than a couple of daily healing surge resources.

Perhaps the problem isn't that the power is too strong, but that your expectations of a level 5 controller daily pwoer are too low. And I guarantee you that if you nerf or remove this power then your wizard player will just pick up Stinking Cloud or Grasp of the Grave and be equally effective.

If you want to limit the power then do so by using appropriate tactics. Don't send in a bunch of melee only enemies against the aprty, and if you absolutely have to do this then split them up so the wizzard can't target them all. Look out for opportunities to daze the wizard - being dazed will force him to chose between sustaining the power or doing something else, and even when sustained he can't repeat the attack so any monster which makes its save that round can escape from the radius.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Aug 17, 2009)

I have not seen this power in play yet, but from what I have read in this thread, we are talking about a Daily power that:

A> Requires action investment by the wizard
B> Alters the landscape of the battle field
C> Works very well when the rest of the team takes tactical advantage
D> Can be worked around through a number of tools in the DM's toolkit
E> Makes the Wizard a hige target of the bad guys...


?

Seems like a win to me!

I would not nerf this power, altho I might have some words with Stalker0 about that staff/orb combination


----------



## Turtlejay (Aug 17, 2009)

My Illusionist (RIP) had this power, and it was always a game changer.  Well, the two times he used it before he died.  Things to remember:

It does no damage.
It can't be moved.

It does no real harm to the enemy other than forcibly move them to the spot of your choosing.  I can see how in some situations it could be seen as overpowered, but most powers have those kinds of situations, right?

Jay


----------



## Bast1ano (Aug 18, 2009)

I have reviewed both Stinking Cloud and Grasp of The Grave. Both of these spells are exactly the level of power I would expect from a 5th level daily. Both of them have a burst radius consistent with other daily powers across multiple classes. What I also like about these two powers is that keeping enemies (even dazed ones) in the zone requires more strategy, coordination, and effort from the party. While both of these powers may initially catch any number of foes within their zones, determined creatures can escape within a round or two. If the party wants to get them back into the zone they will have to find another way to do so.

Thank you for your suggestions. Clogging up lines of movement with minions and other creatures is a good idea. Stacking conditions on the wizard that reduce his number of actions also seems key to limiting his options. Still, I'd rather not have to keep this in mind for every encounter.

My solution will probably be to reduce the range of the burst. It's really the only aspect of the power that is clearly out of line with the other daily powers of this level. The fact that it makes other wizard powers more attractive in some situations probably means it's the right move.


----------



## kerbarian (Aug 18, 2009)

There are a couple things you can do with monster tactics, within the rules, that help mitigate it:

1) Heal checks.  If there are two adjacent enemies within the effect, one can make a heal check on the other to grant a save vs. immobilized, and then the other guy (if he makes his save) can immediately move out.  I've even had a ranged enemy voluntarily walk into the central square so that he's always available for heal checks, and if no one needs to be released, he can just sit there and shoot.

2) Readied actions.  This one seems like a bit of an abuse of the rules, and in our campaign readied actions are house ruled to disallow it.  By RAW, though, you get to save in between readying an action and taking that readied action.  So, while immobilized, a creature can ready an action to, for example, charge the nearest enemy as soon as the ranger makes an attack.  The monster readies an action, finishes its turn, makes a save, and then has a chance to charge before the wizard can re-immobilize it (delay past the wizard if necessary, to make sure he can't re-immobilize before the readied action goes off).


----------



## OchreJelly (Aug 18, 2009)

kerbarian said:


> 2) Readied actions.  This one seems like a bit of an abuse of the rules, and in our campaign readied actions are house ruled to disallow it.  By RAW, though, you get to save in between readying an action and taking that readied action.  So, while immobilized, a creature can ready an action to, for example, charge the nearest enemy as soon as the ranger makes an attack.  The monster readies an action, finishes its turn, makes a save, and then has a chance to charge before the wizard can re-immobilize it (delay past the wizard if necessary, to make sure he can't re-immobilize before the readied action goes off).





I'm not even sure you need to house rule this one.  The rules for delay specifically state that harmful effects are saved after you act:



> End Harmful Effects after You Act: After you return to the initiative order and take your actions, end effects that last until the end of your turn and that are harmful to you. For example, if an enemy weakened you until the end of your next turn, the weakened




I could be wrong but I thought a sidebar stated this applied to both ready and delay actions.


----------



## Squire James (Aug 18, 2009)

My experience with the spell (from a huge sample of one) is that it does put a very large class of monsters at a huge disadvantage.  My judgement of the situation is that the spell is not an unreasonable effect, but that its effect covers too wide a range of enemies.

So several solutions present themselves.  The DM can reduce the number of encounters with melee-only foes, but this is a pretty major alteration in the fabric of some campaigns.  The DM can house-rule in the Charm keyword to allow certain monsters to ignore their greed.  This might not be enough.

If I felt I had to tamper with the spell, I would remove the "repeat this attack" mechanic and add "Aftereffect: target is slowed (save ends)" to the immobilize effect.  Anything more than this and I might as well ban the spell (which of course is another option).


----------



## Trevelyan (Aug 18, 2009)

Bast1ano said:


> I have reviewed both Stinking Cloud and Grasp of The Grave. Both of these spells are exactly the level of power I would expect from a 5th level daily.



Hmm, Grasp of the Grave and Stinking Cloud are no less powerful than Visions of Averice when you take everything into account:

GotG has a 5x5 area which is easily increased to 7x7 with enlarge spell (VoA cannot be enlarged). Like VoA it targets enemies only. It automatically does 1d10+int necrotic damage and dazes the target, plus does 5 necrotic damage and continues to keep the target dazed so long as he is in the area or when he enters the area (VoA does no direct damage and immobilises targets which is more effective against melee targets but less effective against ranged targets). GotG lasts for an entire enoucnter without sustaining (VoA requires a minor action to sustain and another minor to repeat the attack against enemies which save, leaving the wizard with one standard action per round - effectively dazed himself).

Stinking Cloud has a 5x5 area which is easily increased to 7x7 with enlarge spell (VoA canot be enlarged). It does 1d10+int poison damage on a hit and continues to do 1d10+Int poison damage to any creature starting within or entering the zone (VoA does no direct damage). Although it does not hinder movement, SC blocks line of sight, rendering many ranged attackers within or beyond the cloud ineffective. It requires a minor action to sustain but does damage automatically thereafter (VoA minor to sustain). SC can be moved up to 6 squares as a move action (VoA cannot move and takes a second minor action, effectively a move action, to repeat the pull attack).

Both spells inflict damage directly, take fewer actions to sustain and can easily have a wide area of effect. GotG takes no effort to sustain and dazes targets automatically (VoA requires a hit roll to pull and immobilise), and SC can be moved if an enemy flees the area and does more damage than GotG or VoA. Which of the three spells is most effective at any given moment depends significantly on the circumstances of the encounter, but certainly not on one spell being inherently more potent than the others. 

 Both of them have a burst radius consistent with other daily powers across multiple classes. What I also like about these two powers is that keeping enemies (even dazed ones) in the zone requires more strategy, coordination, and effort from the party. While both of these powers may initially catch any number of foes within their zones, determined creatures can escape within a round or two. If the party wants to get them back into the zone they will have to find another way to do so.



> My solution will probably be to reduce the range of the burst. It's really the only aspect of the power that is clearly out of line with the other daily powers of this level. The fact that it makes other wizard powers more attractive in some situations probably means it's the right move.



Reducing the range of the burst will make the spell significantly less effective. Remember that the outer region of the burst only applies a pull efect on a hit, as anyone caught at burst 5 range, when pulled 3 squares, will be outside the burst 1 immobilise zone. What you are looking at is an effective burst 4 for pulling and immobilising, which is no better than a readily available burst 3 on the other two powers (with one very useful feat) for sustainable damage and other features. And even if your wizard can't enlarge the other spells, is a 2 square increase in radius not a fair exchange for a lack of damage and increased effort required to sustain the power?


----------



## kerbarian (Aug 18, 2009)

OchreJelly said:


> I could be wrong but I thought a sidebar stated this applied to both ready and delay actions.



That's basically the house rule for our campaign.  I'd love to find one, but I've never seen a sidebar that says it also applies to readied actions.


----------



## spayne (Aug 20, 2009)

Trevelyan said:


> VoA canot be enlarged




It can be enlarged a bit.  If you use an Architect's Staff to add squares to the initial 1 square zone, the burst will be larger since the origin for the burst is that zone.  This also creates a larger zone for immobilizing.

Also, you can use VoA to get combat advantage with Phantom Echoes on many enemies each round.

The compendium says that VoA burst is an at-will power, so if that is true it would count for things like White Lotus feats.


----------



## weem (Feb 10, 2010)

kerbarian said:


> 1) Heal checks.  If there are two adjacent enemies within the effect, one can make a heal check on the other to grant a save vs. immobilized, and then the other guy (if he makes his save) can immediately move out.  I've even had a ranged enemy voluntarily walk into the central square so that he's always available for heal checks, and if no one needs to be released, he can just sit there and shoot.




Can you hook me up with a page # to reference this at? I have a player with this power in my game (I don't see much harm from its two uses so far) - but I was not aware you could use a heal check in such a way... something I am very much looking forward to using in my game tomorrow (including vs this spell perhaps, hehe).

I agree with much of what has been said regarding ways to counter it - spreading out mobs, mixing artillery etc in there... but that's all easy for me as I try to do them anyway (keep things mixed up and changing/dynamic) - it's just good encounter building I think.


----------



## Zinovia (Feb 10, 2010)

*Granting a saving throw with the heal skill*



			
				D&D Compendium said:
			
		

> Grant a Saving Throw: Make a DC 15 Heal check. If you succeed, an adjacent ally can immediately make a saving throw, or the ally gets a +2 bonus to a saving throw at the end of his or her next turn.




I believe that it takes a standard action to use it in this way.  It's a great things for minions to do to help out their boss who has been dazed, immobilized, or afflicted with some other nasty thing.  I don't know the page number, but this is from the skill section in the PHB.


----------



## Starfox (Feb 10, 2010)

OchreJelly said:


> I'm not even sure you need to house rule this one.  The rules for delay specifically state that harmful effects are saved after you act:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I believe this quote is about delaying, not readied actions. Its debatable if you can make readied actions with triggers that are other than enemy actions, but even that can be gotten around by saying that you trigger an action to occur when any enemy does anything.


----------



## Starfox (Feb 10, 2010)

Here it is:


			
				PH1 Page 185 said:
			
		

> First Aid: Standard action.
> [...]
> * Grant a Saving Throw: Make a DC 15 Heal check. If you succeed, an adjacent ally can immediately make a saving throw, or the ally gets a +2 bonus to a saving throw at the end of his or her next turn.


----------



## weem (Feb 10, 2010)

Thanks for the heal check references!

So yea, right there with the Heal check... duh. I thought maybe this came elsewhere (different book) as I always assumed (falsely it seems) that the Heal check used in such a fashion was for Death Saves (only). That's what I get for not going over the skills more often.

Thanks again all (sorry to side-track the discussion a hair)


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Feb 10, 2010)

You didn't sidetrack anything, you ressurrected it!


----------

