Visions of Avarice trivializes melee encounters?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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