Visions of Avarice trivializes melee encounters?
- Thread starter kerbarian
- Start date
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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?
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.
