Will o' Wisp's Luring Glow

[Atlemar]

(Posting again; first posted over in the P1 thread where Google pointed me to an old discussion.)

The Will-o'-Wisp power Luring Glow:

Luring Glow (Standard; sustain minor, at-will): Close burst 20; blind creatures are immune; one target in the burst; +11 vs Will; the target is pulled 3 squares and dazed (save ends).

Does the sustain minor mean the WoW turns on Luring Glow, and then on subsequent turns can make another attack as a minor action?

In the other thread, Obryn suggested it means a WoW can again pull an affected target 3 squares. That makes sense, but I want to make sure I'm not nerfing the WoW (or overbuffing it) before I spring it on the PCs.


*the attack bonus is different here than in MM2 because this is the block for a reduced-level version I'm planning to use.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I would rule that the minor action allows the wisp to keep pulling a dazed target closer. If a target saves and is no longer dazed then the wisp must attack again as a standard action to affect that target. I would also allow the wisp to use its minor action to draw in as many targets as are currently affected at the time. This combined with bog terrain that can sink and drown dazed victims makes the wisp nice and scary.

 

[CapnZapp]

Generally, as I understand sustains, they're broken by the victim saving, where a save ends is indicated.

This really is an area which is very badly explained by the rules, and goes against the intiutive sense of the word "sustain" you might bring with you when you first come across 4E. (Just look at some of the Warlock powers!)

But I agree with Exploder. I believe the intention is that as long as the victim can't break free of the lure, he's hauled in further.

Of course, to make any real sense, the rule needs a rewrite.

Here are two possibilities:
1) Split it up into one initial Will attack (as a standard action) that makes the victim dazed, and a follow-up attack (as a minor action) that only targets a Dazed creature*, but auto-succeeds to pulls him 3 squares automatically. In other words: no "sustain" language at all. Not only does this clear up what's intended, it also allows the Will'o'Wisp to synergize with other monsters that daze.
*) Or perhaps all dazed creatures within range, as per Exploder's suggestion?

2) Change the dazed from save ends to "until the end of the Will'o'Wisp's next turn". Thus, by "sustaining" you repeat the attack, and keep the target dazed one more round (if successful).
Sustain powers that make it clear what they're sustaining is about to end; unless you spend the required sustain action to, well, sustain, that condition; are much easier to understand and use.

 

[DracoSuave]

Generally, as I understand sustains, they're broken by the victim saving, where a save ends is indicated.

This really is an area which is very badly explained by the rules, and goes against the intiutive sense of the word "sustain" you might bring with you when you first come across 4E. (Just look at some of the Warlock powers!)

Not at all.

Thing is, durations in 4e aren't described by a discrete period of time. They are based upon conditions that, when satisfied, end the effect. These are called Conditional Durations. Until End of Your Next Turn, (save ends), etc are all Conditional. Sustained Durations are a special form that allow the user to spend a specifiied action to move 'Until the End of Your Next Turn''s conditional end one turn later.

So: Monster powers that have sustain are automatically 'Until the end of the monster's next turn' by definition. As well, this power has (save ends) which means that the power will end at the end of the next turn, or when the saving throw is successful. Sustain then allows the monster to bump 'end of the next turn' but sustain does not effect other conditiuons that end effects.


Also, the only part of the power that has a continuous effect is the dazed, so that's the only part that is effected by sustaining. If a power allows you to repeat a non-continuous effect (like damage) it tells you so directly. Monster powers are no exception to this.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not so sure about that. I agree you could interpret Luring Glow this way, but I disagree that is the only, or best, interpretation.

It is equally possible to interpret it as the dazed condition is save ends, but that the wisp can pull you 3 squares every turn once it has hit by sustaining the effect. A more RAI interpretation would be that once the power hits the character is affected by it and can escape the effect by saving, in which case the WoW has to hit again. If the character fails to save, then the WoW can sustain the power and pull the target 3 squares again on its next turn.

Remember, saving throws generally end the entire effect they are made against. If a power creates multiple conditions, then they are ALL governed by that one save, not separate ones. In this case I think basically the entire effect of the power is like a condition, it dazes the target and allows it to be pulled 3 squares as a minor action in subsequent turns, as long as the effect lasts.

I agree that it was poorly worded and they should have come up with a better way of describing it, like defining a "mesmerized" state that is similar to a mark on the target. The WoW could sustain it and its effects are it dazes the target and allows it to be pulled 3 squares, and then state that the target can make a save to remove the mark. Something like that. Realistically though monster designers are a bit hampered by the amount of space available in a stat block to a fairly general description of the power, so often stuff like this pops up where a monster power is not entirely well described. It would be interesting to see what CS says about it.

 

[DracoSuave]

Wut

Pull 3 squares is not an effect that can have a duration, and sustaining an effect does not allow you to repeat the entire power from the beginning.

Flaming Sphere, for example. Sustaining that only allows you to keep the conjuration going, and allows you to spend an action to attack with it. It does not go ahead and summon a completely new sphere.


Sustain gives the end condition 'Until the end of your next turn' to the power, being a monster's power gives the end condition 'instantaneously unless otherwise noted' to the power, and (save ends) gives the end condition of a saving through to the dazed effect.'

The damage, and the pull are instant effects, dazed (being otherwise noted) is a save-ends effect with the sustain adding in 'until the end of your next turn' to the list of ending conditions.

If it intended the sustain to mean 'repeat the attack' then it would say so, just as it does for -every- sustain power in the game that repeats the attack.

 

[CapnZapp]

Draco: I honestly believe the stance "WotC has explained sustain in perfect clarity" is an unconstructive stance to take.

Just because you feel you understand how it works does not make such a stance true for everybody else.

Not even if you explain to me and everyone else how it works, and you do it effortlessly, makes such a stance true. After all, then it is you, and not WotC, who has explained the mechanism.



If WotC means that any "(save ends)" mentioned in a sustainable power breaks off your ability to sustain the power once your target saves (in addition to getting rid of whatever you saved against), they have utterly failed to make that clear.

Remember most players don't have the Internet to aid their rules interpretation. Only the PHB.

 

[DracoSuave]

Draco: I honestly believe the stance "WotC has explained sustain in perfect clarity" is an unconstructive stance to take.

Just because you feel you understand how it works does not make such a stance true for everybody else.

Not even if you explain to me and everyone else how it works, and you do it effortlessly, makes such a stance true. After all, then it is you, and not WotC, who has explained the mechanism.



If WotC means that any "(save ends)" mentioned in a sustainable power breaks off your ability to sustain the power once your target saves (in addition to getting rid of whatever you saved against), they have utterly failed to make that clear.

Remember most players don't have the Internet to aid their rules interpretation. Only the PHB.

And the PHB says:

Conditional Durations: These effects last until a specified event occurs.

...

Save Ends: The effect ends when the target makes a successful saving throw against it.


Save ends durations explicitly end when a save is made. By the book. A Sustained duration allows you to extend an existing effect, but does not allow you to re-activate an effect that has ended. And save ends -explicitly- ends the effect, according to the PHB. As well, not spending an action to sustain an effect ends an effect, according to the PHB.

I am well aware most people have the PHB.

And those 'confusing warlock powers' that have save ends -and- sustain? They explicitly tell you in the power how to deal with it. In the PHB.


However, -nothing- in sustained durations say you repeat instantaneous effects unless something tells you to do so. -That- is not RAW, that's RAMade Up. DM has the right to do that, and good on him if he does, but that's not what the book tells you should do, or can do.

Pull 3 squares and damage are instantaneous effects, and cannot be 'extended'. They can only be repeated, and you -only- do that when you are told sustaining does that.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sorry Draco, but if the above was intended as proof sustains are really very easy, well...


Do note: I'm not contesting your take on the specific power discussed (Will'o'Wisp).

I'm just asking you to think about why people get confused (as shown by this thread) over and over again (these questions are not uncommon).

As for me, regarding Luring Glare I would want there to be something addressing the sustain bit in the power description itself.

When I don't find anything like the elegant "sustain: the power/zone/etc lasts until the end of your next turn" (which neatly and succintly explains everything you need to know) I'm kind of lost. What ends the sustainability here (except me not taking the required action)? Missing the attack roll? Do sustaining even get me an attack roll? Or is that part of the initial effect only?

Whether there's an (save ends) somewhere in the power description does not seem to have anything to to with me, the sustainer. There is no rules language to make it explicit that all successful saves also break off my sustain-ability (if indeed that is the case).

It seems so sloppily designed. There can be any number of words between the sustain part of the description, and the save ends that ends it. It feels really awkward to have to hunt through the entire paragraph just to find out what the target can do to escape my sustains!

And, hypothetically, what if you were to have,say, a power causing two different conditions, with different (save ends)?

Just refering to some overall generic rules language is very far from being good enough. You really need to be a rules lawyer to understand and accept the connection between a save getting rid of a condition, and the same save getting rid of the sustainability.

It really should have been explained better.

 

[DracoSuave]

Well, that's part of a DM's job to do that sort of figuring it out, so there needs to be less explanation than for powers which are for players who don't need to be as intimate with the rules or have abilities to make rulings.

But what we DO know:

The power does not repeat the attack.
The power does not repeat the slide.
The power has only one contiguous effect.
That effect ends when you save.
The power has sustain minor, with no additional effect on the sustain, so the only thing the power -can- sustain is the effect with a save.
If a power ends you cannot sustain it, because it is no longer active.

The only possibility that makes sense is that the condition ends when either you fail to sustain, or they make a save. It's an elegant solution, and doesn't involve inventing attacks that do not exist. There is precident for this style of ability as well.

The other two possibilities are either 'Save ends doesn't actually apply' or 'Sustain doesn't actually apply', and I feel those are inelegant rulings to make.