Proposal - Martial Power

Lord Sessadore · Feb 19, 2009

I'll have to read it again once I get home (in a couple days), but I thought the wording on BRV was something to the effect of "when you are hit by a melee or close attack, you gain temporary hp equal to your Con modifier", which leaves it open to the interpretation that it occurs after every such attack. Of course, I'm going on memory here, so I could be wrong.

nerdytenor · Feb 19, 2009

Atanatotatos said:
Actually, I definitely interpret it as once per round.

Not as written, but that points to a very interesting 'fix' - make the granting of temp hp an immediate interrupt. Thoughts?

Lord Sessadore · Feb 19, 2009

nerdytenor said:
Not as written, but that points to a very interesting 'fix' - make the granting of temp hp an immediate interrupt. Thoughts?

That is definitely an interesting fix. Personally, I had thought about just stating a once per round limit on that source of temp hp, but making it an immediate interrupt would be ... interesting.

Actually, I think an immediate reaction would be better. If it's an interrupt, it has the potential to completely negate the attack, actually making the 'rager tougher for getting hit. :erm:

Though in either case, the 'rager has a tough decision to make: take the temp hp, or keep your immediate action in case you need to use Combat Challenge.

Interesting...

EDIT: As an aside:

Compendium said:
Each time an enemy hits you with a melee or a close attack, you gain temporary hit points equal to your Constitution modifier (after the attack is resolved).

hafrogman · Feb 19, 2009

nerdytenor said:
Not as written, but that points to a very interesting 'fix' - make the granting of temp hp an immediate interrupt. Thoughts?

There's one major downside to this. You only get one immediate action per round. And the fighter's combat challenge class feature is an immediate interrupt, as Lord Sessadore noted.

I.e., if you chose to take HP when an enemy hits you, you then can't punish a marked enemy for shifting/attacking another character.

I think that limits the usefulness of the battlerager a little too much by forcing players to chose between their class feature or their role.

I think plain "once per round" wording (per sneak attack/warlock curse/hunter's quarry) would be a better solution, rather than assigning it an action.

nerdytenor · Feb 19, 2009

hafrogman said:
There's one major downside to this. You only get one immediate action per round. And the fighter's combat challenge class feature is an immediate interrupt, as Lord Sessadore noted.

Exactly. That's why I liked it.

Lord Sessadore said:
Actually, I think an immediate reaction would be better.

Yes, I think you're right.

Just to muddy the waters further, I have another alternative to propose (Gosh I just love rules-mucking)

"Whenever you lose hitpoints (not temporary hitpoints) from a melee or close attack, afterwards you gain an equal number of temporary hitpoints up to a maximum of your constitution modifier."

SeaPainter · Feb 19, 2009

hafrogman said:
There's one major downside to this. You only get one immediate action per round. And the fighter's combat challenge class feature is an immediate interrupt, as Lord Sessadore noted.

I.e., if you chose to take HP when an enemy hits you, you then can't punish a marked enemy for shifting/attacking another character.

I think that limits the usefulness of the battlerager a little too much by forcing players to chose between their class feature or their role.

I think plain "once per round" wording (per sneak attack/warlock curse/hunter's quarry) would be a better solution, rather than assigning it an action.

Although, I suppose this could reflect the BR's losing his focus/discipline and getting a boost from pure rage...

hafrogman · Feb 19, 2009

I guess I honestly feel that altering a defender's ability to perform his role is going to be the easiest way to really damage the game's fundamental mechanics.

I think at that point it would be far better to simply disallow the feature entirely, to prevent anyone from taking it without realizing that they would be unable to use it and perform their role. Basically if they can't use it, they may as well not have it. And if they can't perform one of the four roles, they're going to be dissapointing to play no matter what. They'll be outdamaged by strikers, and unable to help their teammates like a defender should.

Lord Sessadore · Feb 20, 2009

I think the point goes to hafrogman here.

Making a fighter have to choose between BRV and being able to use their key defender ability is too much.

However, I definitely think that making the temp HP from BRV occur only once per round is a must. Adding wording to the effect that they must have taken 'real' damage before gaining the BRV temp hp is possibly a good addition, too - makes melee minions whose damage is less than the battlerager's Con mod an actual threat.

Naturally, all that is only my opinion.

Dunamin · Feb 20, 2009

Yes, hafrogman brings up a good point. If we give people cake they should be allowed to eat it too.

I agree that reducing temp hp gain to 1/round should be a minimum adjustment, though I don't believe that's enough to bring the entire class feature in line with "+1 to hit".

Lord Sessadore said:
Adding wording to the effect that they must have taken 'real' damage before gaining the BRV temp hp is possibly a good addition, too

Wouldn't this work by keeping the clause "(after the attack is resolved)" from the feature?

Lord Sessadore · Feb 20, 2009

Dunamin said:
Yes, hafrogman brings up a good point. If we give people cake they should be allowed to eat it too.

I agree that reducing temp hp gain to 1/round should be a minimum adjustment, though I don't believe that's enough to bring the entire class feature in line with "+1 to hit".

Yes, I'm not sure it's quite enough either. But it's a start.

Dunamin said:
Wouldn't this work by keeping the clause "(after the attack is resolved)" from the feature?

I was referring to what nerdytenor suggested:

nerdytenor said:
"Whenever you lose hitpoints (not temporary hitpoints) from a melee or close attack, afterwards you gain an equal number of temporary hitpoints up to a maximum of your constitution modifier."

The way I read what he suggested is that you only get the BRV temp hp when the damage taken by a melee or close attack is strictly greater than the number of temp hp you had before the attack. IE you take damage to your 'real' hit points, as opposed to only losing temp hp.

For example: Bob the battlerager has 4 temporary hp. Gil the goblin hits Bob for 3 damage. Bob now has 1 temporary hp, and doesn't get any from BRV. Next round, Gil hits Bob again, for another 3 damage. Bob loses his 1 remaining temp hp and takes 2 damage. He then recieves temporary hp equal to his Con modifier, from BRV.

It's a little more complicated, but it does make the battlerager a little less invincible. I would have this restriction in addition to the 1/round restriction, myself.