False Bravado (PHB3)

[bmadden]

False Bravado is a Bluff Utility 2 that grants an at-will minor action to remove a marked condition.
As a DM I could grant this low-level ability to every BBEG, thus making my Swordmage, Warlock, and Fighter characters sad.

Is this new feat overpowered?

 

[Oompa]

I think it depends.. it can be annoying for the players.. but not so much of a drag i think..

 

[Lancelot]

There are *comparatively* few monsters that mark PCs (some Soldier-types), and few of those do anything particularly nasty to a marked target. Hence, it's quite balanced as a PC power. It'll come in handy every now and then, but you could go an entire session... or many sessions... without ever getting the opportunity to use it.

From a DM's perspective, why would you consider giving it to every BBEG unless you were willfully wanting to screw over the players? That's like noting that the party warlock has specialized in necrotic spells, so you only throw undead against the party... or make sure that every BBEG has taken a feat that gives them necrotic resistance 5 (several available).

I think it's quite legitimate to give it to at least *one* BBEG, though. It'd surprise the defenders and force them to adapt their tactics for that one fight.

 

[chitzk0i]

I'd give it recharge 456, but otherwise, an interesting way to spice up a solo fight.

 

[Piratecat]

I ask myself: will it make the game more fun?

In this case, I think I'd save it for special BBEGs, and even then only utilize it once or twice in a fight. Adding challenge is great (just like a monster with resistances, for instance), but I don't want to neuter the defenders.

 

[fba827]

while it's entirely possible to design your BBEGs that way, remember that in 4e suggested advice a) how things are written for monsters is not always good for PCs, and visa versa. b) The basis for 4e monster/NPC design is about "does adding ability X serve a purpose to the story"

So with these two items in mind, you may want to double-back as to why you want to give this ability to all your BBEGs... is it really appropriate for -all- of them? I mean, do they each individually have a good reason to have the ability? Or you're giving them the ability just because they are BBEGs?

And then (because monster powers are not the same as PC powers) for those that do get it, it makes sense that it would be a recharge power because it would hinder the PC defenders if they are built around the mark ability (just like if you gave all your enemies fire resistance and immunity but you had a PC that was a pyromancer, etc - it would just lead to pointless frustration, making it more about you versus the now-frustrated players, rather than the PCs against challenging encounters)


As a PC power, no, not really overpowered because (as others mentioned above) few monsters have marks that have additional 'rider effects' like PC defenders do (where their mark ability usually carries another effect in addition to the mark).

 

[MrBeens]

As others have said it is not overpowered at all as a PC power.

NPCs and monsters don't get feats by default so there is no problem there.

If you decide you want to give your npcs feats and other PC abilities, then weather it is overpowered or not is 100% up to you.

 

[MrMyth]

False Bravado is a Bluff Utility 2 that grants an at-will minor action to remove a marked condition.
As a DM I would grant this low-level ability to every BBEG, thus making my Swordmage, Warlock, and Fighter characters sad.

Is this new feat overpowered?

No more so than adding any other ability arbitrarily to your BBEG to make it too powerful for the PCs. That judgement call comes down to you, in the end, and the existence of this ability as a skill power for PCs shouldn't depend on it. Monsters mark rarely, and so it is a relatively weak power for PCs to get (hence why it is an at-will minor action.)

But its existence for PCs should be completely irrelevant to whether a monster has it. Is it an enemy that False Bravado or a similar power would be meaningful for? Is the BBEG a cunning rogue adept at slipping away from Defenders? Then yeah, feel free to give it to them, and it will make for an unusual and potentially exciting encounters as the PCs find their normal tricks not applicable.

But giving it to all BBEGs? Including ones it would not be in any way thematic for? That's just making poor choices as a DM. In the end, if the DM wants to screw over players, he can give monsters whatever abilities he feels like, and things will end poorly for the PCs. But giving a potentially strong power to the occasional bad guy of note, to make the fight memorable and distinct? That can be just fine.

 

[Mengu]

I'm not sure I understand the problem. There is nothing stopping you from making a creature immune to marks if that is your wish. Monsters don't need this utility. Similarly there is nothing stopping you from making a monster immune to opportunity attacks, or become insubstantial while moving, or gain +5 all defenses against opportunity attacks. Monsters don't follow PC rules. You can even go the complete opposite direction and give a monster bonuses to hit/damage targets that are marking them.

Having said that, my BBEG's usually can ignore marks anyway, in a matter of speaking. When you have a sizable attack bonus to hit stuff on a 4 or 5, and 800-900 hit points, the -2 penalty to attack and the 10-12 points of damage you take from a divine sanction, or even the 25-30 points of damage you *might* take from combat challenge, are pretty ignorable.

 

[Gruns]

Overpowered?! Umm... Much closer to the side of "Useless and will never be taken."
As has been pointed out, there are very few NPCs that Mark. And most of those Marks aren't drastic by anny means. Surely not drastic enough to bother spending a Utility (or Feat) selection on just on the off chance that you may get to use it once every level maybe.
It would be much more useful for NPCs but this is part of the reason they don't follow PC rules...
Later! Gruns