Balanced?: Mix and Match Defender Mechanisms

[ButcherMagnus]

I haven't DMed or played with the essentials Knight (4EE), but I think the defender mechanism (aura 1, no marking) is simple and effective. A player wants to make a brawler fighter (4EO), and I'm considering trying to trade out the Combat Superiority and Combat Challenge features for the Knight's defender aura.

Now, I realize there are upsides and downsides to each marking mechanism. I also realize that if I allow the switch I should probably disallow that PC taking any attack powers that mark opponents, since the two mechanisms wouldn't jive well. I also realize that I'm going to be dealing with a fighter who can use Grappling Strike to grab opponents for every opportunity action allowed by the Knight defender mechanism via Heavy Blade Opportunity, but I tend to think this is not too powerful since he will only be able to grab one opponent at a time.

My question is, do you think this would be overpowered? Too sticky? I am favoring it because it is simple, but if it is far more effective than a normal 4EO brawler fighter, I'd rather avoid it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Depends on your group.

If you like to play a cooperative game, i guess no one complains, if the fighter can do its job slightly better (or worse).
Also combat superiority + combat challenge is a great mechanism. A single combatant can be locked down really well.

 

[the Jester]

Part of the joy of the PH/MP fighter is the complexity. I'd keep it as is, or at least make sure you aren't spoiling the player's fun by swapping out like that.

 

[Chzbro]

As a brawler fighter, he can use Grappling Strike as an opportunity attack even without HBO.

But that's not really an answer. Personally, I don't think what you propose would be particularly problematic. In fact, with no Combat Superiority he'll be a little less sticky that a regular brawler. Were I the player in question, I'd have to think a little about whether I'd rather have the stance or CS which tells me it's probably a fair tradeoff.

He'll still be plenty sticky though. He can only grab one guy at a time, true, but he doesn't have to maintain the grab. He can grab, stop movement, then "drop" as a free action so that he has a hand free for the next opportunity action. With the aura, though, he won't be able to stop shifting opponents. As a DM, I think I'd actually prefer that. Stupid brawlers.

EDIT: Without Combat Challenge he'll be less sticky. I said Combat Superiority; sorry.

 

[WalterKovacs]

As a brawler fighter, he can use Grappling Strike as an opportunity attack even without HBO.

But that's not really an answer. Personally, I don't think what you propose would be particularly problematic. In fact, with no Combat Superiority he'll be a little less sticky that a regular brawler. Were I the player in question, I'd have to think a little about whether I'd rather have the stance or CS which tells me it's probably a fair tradeoff.

He'll still be really sticky though. He can only grab one guy at a time, true, but he doesn't have to maintain the grab. He can grab, stop movement, then "drop" as a free action so that he has a hand free for the next opportunity action. With the aura, though, he won't be able to stop shifting opponents. As a DM, I think I'd actually prefer that. Stupid brawlers.

Technically speaking, he can only make a normal MBA against a shifting opponent either way, he only gets an OA (and thus the ability to use grabbing strike) when they move (or make a ranged attack). So he'd get to attack every enemy that shifted away instead of only 1/round, but the the enemies that shift away would not have the attack penalty. Also, multitarget attacks wouldn't be as useful (come and get it is still nice for pulling people into the aura, but otherwise he doesn't need to multi-mark), so he can focus on the single target grapple stuff while still getting to "mark" lot's of people at once.

EDIT:

I forgot about Mobile Challenge, which doesn't stop shifting opponent's, per se, but would often leave them unable to escape the fighter, or his OA. [Or staggering challenge that let's you trade damage for knocking them prone]. In general, the original stuff has better feat support, since the new one has none realy. (Similarly, there are ways to make the fighter's mark count as -3, but none that improve the aura).

 

[Chzbro]

Technically speaking, he can only make a normal MBA against a shifting opponent either way, he only gets an OA (and thus the ability to use grabbing strike) when they move (or make a ranged attack). So he'd get to attack every enemy that shifted away instead of only 1/round, but the the enemies that shift away would not have the attack penalty.

Maybe the OP's proposal requires more clarification or maybe I'm just missing something. Why would he "get to attack every enemy that shifted away from him instead of only 1/round"? The aura only imposes attack penalties, not a mark, right? And the OP said that the aura would replace Combat Superiority and Combat Challenge. Combat Challenge is what lets him swing at shifting (marked) targets or at (marked) targets that attack someone else.

The way I understand the OP, he wants to give a Grappler a knight's aura. This means the Grappler will get to attack shifting enemies zero times per round. He also can't punish opponents for not attacking him. These are benefits of Combat Challenge which he will no longer have. The trade-off is that he automatically imposes the attack penalty to everyone around him, but he's much less "sticky."

However, he will be able to grab a target that moves and provokes an OA. Without CC he can only stop targets that move (not shift), but that still makes him "stickier" than most other defenders who can't stop anyone from moving under normal circumstances.

Unless I'm missing a crucial interaction (which is entirely possible), this doesn't seem overpowered to me (although as a player I'd almost certainly want Combat Challenge over the aura since I enjoy the complexity).

 

[ButcherMagnus]

I apologize for not being specific enough. Teach me to post without looking up the compendium. I meant that the fighter would get both the Defender Aura AND the Battle Guardian at-will opportunity attack, which together form the defender mechanic for the Knight. When I first posted I mistakenly believed those were both one power.

So it looks like, if I interpret the rules correctly, that even without Heavy Blade Opportunity, he can use Grappling Strike on any opportunity attack. Under the 4EO mechanics, he gets to use Grappling Strike only if the marked foe moves away or fires a ranged attack, but if they shift or attack an ally, he only gets a flat out melee basic. Whereas if the 4EE mechanics were used, he would get to use Grappling Strike if the adjacent foe does ANYTHING other than attack the fighter.

My impression from your comments and my continued rumination on the subject leads me to believe that I'm opening up some confusion regarding interaction with marks and feats, and that he would be a LITTLE more sticky. Basically, with the 4EE mechanisms, it seems he would be almost identical (sticky-wise) to a 4EO brawler with Mobile Challenge. I don't think that's too outrageous. And the player I think would like the simplicity.

I thank you all for your responses. I'll check back again for a few days in case anyone has any further comments or insights.

 

[WalterKovacs]

I apologize for not being specific enough. Teach me to post without looking up the compendium. I meant that the fighter would get both the Defender Aura AND the Battle Guardian at-will opportunity attack, which together form the defender mechanic for the Knight. When I first posted I mistakenly believed those were both one power.

So it looks like, if I interpret the rules correctly, that even without Heavy Blade Opportunity, he can use Grappling Strike on any opportunity attack. Under the 4EO mechanics, he gets to use Grappling Strike only if the marked foe moves away or fires a ranged attack, but if they shift or attack an ally, he only gets a flat out melee basic. Whereas if the 4EE mechanics were used, he would get to use Grappling Strike if the adjacent foe does ANYTHING other than attack the fighter.

Not true. With or without Heavy Blade Opportunity, Grappling Strike can be used as an MBA for opportunity attacks. Battle Guardian is an opportunity action, which is similar (it has the same timing in that it can happen 1/turn), but it doesn't count as an opportunity attack, and thus would not allow you to replace the MBA with Grappling Strike.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I haven't DMed or played with the essentials Knight (4EE), but I think the defender mechanism (aura 1, no marking) is simple and effective.

It is simple. It can be made much less effective if the DM makes a conscious effort to circumvent it. But, that's true to a lesser extent of all defender mechanisms - how effective they are, and in what way they're effective, depends largely on how the DM has monsters react to them.

A player wants to make a brawler fighter (4EO), and I'm considering trying to trade out the Combat Superiority and Combat Challenge features for the Knight's defender aura.

The Brawlers usually take Grappling Strike, which is useable as a basic attack in an OA and /grabs/, thus ending movement something like Combat Superiority. The Knight's mark-punishment is an OA, so it would benefit /greatly/ from that functionality. The result would be a very sticky defender, possibly even stickier vs several marked foes because marked punishment is an OA for the Aura mechanic, so it can be done 1/turn instead of 1/round.

My question is, do you think this would be overpowered? Too sticky? I am favoring it because it is simple, but if it is far more effective than a normal 4EO brawler fighter, I'd rather avoid it.

Depending on your style, it might not be overpowered or even all that effective. Defenders aren't that hard for a DM to circumvent in the meta-game. For instance, if the 1/turn aspect of the Aura gets to be too much when the fighter manages to surround himself with marked foes, have the enemies ready to charge other foes as soon as one of their allies moves - all that movement will happen on the same turn, and the fighter will be back to getting only one of them. Pushing or dazing a Knight or Fighter will also render his mark-punishment moot, as will simply using AEs that can catch both him and the squishier members of his party.

 

[WalterKovacs]

The Brawlers usually take Grappling Strike, which is useable as a basic attack in an OA and /grabs/, thus ending movement something like Combat Superiority. The Knight's mark-punishment is an OA, so it would benefit /greatly/ from that functionality. The result would be a very sticky defender, possibly even stickier vs several marked foes because marked punishment is an OA for the Aura mechanic, so it can be done 1/turn instead of 1/round.

The Knight's mark punishment is an Opportunity Action that happens to involve an MBA, it is not actually an Opportunity Attack, and doesn't allow the use of Grappling Strike.