Will o' Wisp's Luring Glow

[FurryFighter]

well daze usually only lasts until the end of the casters next turn, if its a power that supplies it. So allowing sustain seems to allow the effect to continue. Pulling 3 squares in an action, not an effect.. so the wisp would be sustaining daze until they stop spending minors to do so, or the character has a sufficiently high DC rolled to break it.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

While I understand Dracosuave's argument (and think that it is technically correct), to me it doesn't capture what I think is the intent of the power.

First of all, if the sustain doesn't allow the pull, it basically does nothing at all. Rather, all it does is create an action tax on keeping the target dazed - meaning that the target becomes "undazed" either when it makes its save or when the Wisp fails to suspend an action to sustain. IMHO it adds nothing to the power and is rather inelligant.

More importantly, it doesn't capture the spirit of the Wisp. Basically, the Wisp's whole "schtick" (both in D&D and the myths/stories from which the D&D monster is derived) is to ensorcel (aka daze) travellers (aka the target) and then cause them to walk off into the swamp (aka the pull) where they perish due to environmental hazards (quicksand, drawning, etc.). If the sustain doesn't allow the Wisp to repeat the pull, the power really doesn't capture the "feel" that I feel the creature and this power ought to have.

That said, I do realise the power is very poorly worded for how I think it ought to work. Rather, IMHO the creature is best served by changing the sustain language to specifically indicate it allows the Wisp to pull the target again, or remove the langauage and give the Wisp another power which reads:

Minor action
Target: any creature currently dazed by the Wisp's Luring Glow
Effect: pull target 3 squares

I do realise either change would be a houserule, but it does allow the Wisp to function how IMHO the designers intended it to.

 

[DracoSuave]

The irony of this entire discussion is that the will o the wisp in the MM2 doesn't have sustain at all... and it's an at-will power and always has been an at-will power.


This entire discussion is pointless; you could always repeat the pull by simply reusing the power, and the most recent version of the monster clearly has the problem fixed.

 

[CapnZapp]

The irony of this entire discussion is that the will o the wisp in the MM2 doesn't have sustain at all... and it's an at-will power and always has been an at-will power.


This entire discussion is pointless; you could always repeat the pull by simply reusing the power, and the most recent version of the monster clearly has the problem fixed.

While I thank you for pointing out the Will'o'Wisp has been errataed in MM2, I think the discussion has been far from pointless.

Several posters have shown how unintuitive the sustain rules can be, and how important it is to write them right (much more so than most other rules).

This discussion remains valuable simply because this isn't the first sustain power to be unclear, and it won't be the last. In fact, the rules for sustain seems to be almost too difficult for the designers themselves too!

PS. As far as I can see, the MM2 errata simply drops the sustain language altogether. (It also clarifies a few other things) And yes, this makes instant sense.

 

[DracoSuave]

I was refering as well to the insistance that the Will-O-Wisp doesn't apparently have that ability to repeatedly lure unless sustaining allows a repeat of the pull; But that flavor is captured elegantly by the fact the power is an at-will.

The inelegance of the power isn't the dual ending conditions so much. That's been done before and it's pretty easy to deal with.

It's the fact it was a sustained at-will... that's somewhat hinky and pointless.

 

[CapnZapp]

I would guess had it not been "updated" (errataed), forum consensus would eventually arrive at the conclusion "the sustain is meant to allow the Wisp to do the lure as a minor action, freeing its standard action for other use."

But, yes: shrug.

 

[DracoSuave]

I would guess had it not been "updated" (errataed), forum consensus would eventually arrive at the conclusion "the sustain is meant to allow the Wisp to do the lure as a minor action, freeing its standard action for other use."

But, yes: shrug.

I disagree... you don't -need- to repeat an at-will attack with a sustain action. That's a little dumb in design, and doesn't -accomplish- anything.

And also, it doesn't tell you to repeat the attack.

No, forum consensus would be that it'd be nice to do, but it's hardly necessary at all.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I am glad to find your site - now I know what a good one looks like.
Very good topic to share with us. Great info.

My site? I don't have a website. What do baffled mean?

 

[Atlemar]

While I thank you for pointing out the Will'o'Wisp has been errataed in MM2, I think the discussion has been far from pointless.

Wait, wait, errata? I checked the WotC site for an update ( Official D&D Updates ) before I posted the question and there is no update for MM2. So clearly it's hiding elsewhere. Where should I be looking?

 

[Piratecat]

My site? I don't have a website. What do baffled mean?

Spammity McSpamspam.