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.
Visions of Avarice trivializes melee encounters?
- Thread starter kerbarian
- Start date
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
First Post
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
First Post
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
First Post
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
First Post
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
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.
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.
