Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="keterys" data-source="post: 4702083" data-attributes="member: 43019">This kind of thing is part of what prompted me to start this project, yep.If melee are gaining CA against an immobilized target, then that highly limits the potential effect of the immobilize.I wish less fliers could hover. Not really - but the immobilize trick is only useful on melee only monsters, so it was to show the effect of daze on a melee only monster. The defender can similarly shift back 1 square and the creature can't engage the defender so might have to charge someone other than the defender, possibly provoking, etc - I've actually done this with my fighter and stopped a monster's movement (and turn).Similarly if you daze a ranged combatant, they have to choose whether to provoke OAs when they make a ranged attack or to fall back on a crappier melee option. Immobilize and Daze are both very good options, though worse than stunned. Immobilize is situationally useful. Daze is universally useful. I do think I'll make a pass through the powers at some point to make sure I didn't mark immobilize lower than I should have, though. If you see any in particular, feel free to call them out.I'd imagine so - but that assumes you're all that worried about preventing attacks. Focused fire and killing things prevents attacks too, after all <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />There's a shaman power that does back up the argument that you have to declare targets, then resolve:Effect: Make the attack one more time against the same target or a different one. That Effect is unnecessary if 'two attacks' allows you to resolve one attack then decide the next... so either the designer was misinformed on the rule, or the interpretation that you have to declare targets for all the attacks is RAW.</blockquote>

Verification