Ratings[edit]
|
TheDarkWad opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
|
| Sorry, I just can't get behind a mass, no save, stunned for round/level, even at level 9.
|
|
Luigifan18 favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
|
| Whoa. This is what the Spell Compendium's version WISHES it was. I mean, honestly, ripping a person's blood vessels out of their body? That should totally be a guaranteed kill... (Hey, where'd the Evil descriptor go?!?)
|
|
|
Tarkisflux favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
|
| It's a higher level slightly more brutal version of Avasculate (which was plenty brutal on its own). And I think it's quite appropriate for the spell level.
|
To answer TarkisFlux's question...[edit]
Avasculate and Avascular Mass were originally published in the Spell Compendium, but they really only have the names and basic effect of the versions on this wiki. The original Avasculate (a 7th-level spell) doesn't rip the target's blood vessels out of the body; it just expels some of the blood (cutting the target's current hit points in half and stunning it for 1 round if it fails a Fortitude save). The original Avascular Mass (an 8th-level spell) rips the target's blood vessels out, but mechanically, the only difference is that Avascular Mass creates two twenty-foot net-like masses of blood vessels that anchor themselves to opposing surfaces and entangle everything in the way (they also provide cover for creatures that aren't adjacent to each other). Personally, I had a bit of an issue with the original Avascular Mass's flavor. It rips the target's blood vessels out - it really ought to be a guaranteed kill!!! But, yeah, ripping out the blood vessels is originally what distinguished Avascular Mass from its lesser variant, so that's where the name comes from. --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- ...What question are you talking about? I don't actually see one up there. If you mean my naming concern, I admit to missing that these were reworks of SpC spells with the same names, but that doesn't actually address my concern about the name (it applies equally to both versions). "Mass" is generally used in spells to delineate a group version of a previously singular effect, not like it is used here. It's a homonym issue, and since its use here is not the common one I find it a bit tragic. I mean, would greater avasculate have been that much harder to write? - Tarkisflux Talk 02:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I think it was trying to stay true to the original spell's name. And... I guess "avascular mass" rolls off the tongue better? --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't really have any qualms with renaming it to greater avasculate, I've just been a combination of lazy, busy, and somewhat apathetic at least as far as the nomenclature is concerned. I agree with Luigifan that avascular mass is better sounding to the ear, but the pre-existing connotations of "mass" as a term cannot be ignored forever. - TG Cid (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
