Defenders handing out free attacks (to opponents)

[Saeviomagy]

I agree with your sentiments. The defender is an unattractive target and you can't really make them more attactive because that makes them useless. The trick is to make defenders function like a honey-trap. Once an opponent swallows the bait (the free attack) it is stuck in the defender's threat zone. -Getting out of there is hard, due to the refined opportunity attack-abilities of the defender. It seems you can't even shift in there without provoking aos.

Defenders don't need to function as a honey trap - they just need to get to the monsters. Strikers are the parties scouts because they can escape, and when they escape they hide behind the defenders, forcing the monsters to go through the defenders to get to them.

Giving your opponent an extra attack is far too powerful in 4e, where it's doubling the opponent's damage. It would only really work if a defender had more than twice the hitpoints of the buddies he tries to defend, which would lead to other problems.

Finally there's the logic behind this - is the fighter really just totally dropping his guard and saying "hey! hit me!" and then letting his foe hit him? Why not just stop with step 1? Lower your defenses. Then make it more difficult to hit everybody... and that is basically what the current mark system does.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

You don't need to make the defender a honey trap. You just need to put him in front!

The free attack is an extraordinarily bad idea. Skirmishers will ignore the bait and still attack the soft targets while the brutes will accept it and bury the defender. Bad, bad, bad.

Also, don't forget that PCs are in every fight while monsters are in just one. The laws of great numbers work against PCs. If you hand out free attacks, sooner or later you'll get a brute who'll score two criticals (or worse) in a single round and then that PC will realize why it was moronic to say 'Hit me with your best shot TWICE!' to a giant.

 

[Frostmarrow]

You don't need to make the defender a honey trap. You just need to put him in front!

The free attack is an extraordinarily bad idea. Skirmishers will ignore the bait and still attack the soft targets while the brutes will accept it and bury the defender. Bad, bad, bad.

Also, don't forget that PCs are in every fight while monsters are in just one. The laws of great numbers work against PCs. If you hand out free attacks, sooner or later you'll get a brute who'll score two criticals (or worse) in a single round and then that PC will realize why it was moronic to say 'Hit me with your best shot TWICE!' to a giant.

That was harsh.

But again, you don't have to use it. If you use it wisely it will work for you.

Giving your opponent an extra attack is far too powerful in 4e, where it's doubling the opponent's damage. It would only really work if a defender had more than twice the hitpoints of the buddies he tries to defend, which would lead to other problems.

I suggest an extra basic attack. Hardly a doubling of the opponent's damage output. Balancing is another matter entirely. Things can be tuned up or down. The point is that if combat challenge was handed this way instead of marking we would have less strange side-effects. Warlock/Paladins killing people by tumbling and other nonsense.

 

[Gloombunny]

I suggest an extra basic attack. Hardly a doubling of the opponent's damage output. Balancing is another matter entirely. Things can be tuned up or down. The point is that if combat challenge was handed this way instead of marking we would have less strange side-effects. Warlock/Paladins killing people by tumbling and other nonsense.

It wouldn't be a substitute for marking, though. While a fighter might benefit from being able to lure in foolish enemies, fighters can only mark enemies by hitting them with melee attacks, so a lure wouldn't be serving the same function at all. And a paladin without divine challenge wouldn't have much capability to keep a monster from moving away once it realizes its mistake, and no way to protect an ally adjacent to the paladin.

Also, this sort of idea hinges on the DM having to judge whether each enemy is dumb enough to fall for the trick. It's just too subjective to try to balance a role around.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I suggest an extra basic attack. Hardly a doubling of the opponent's damage output.

For a lot of the monsters we've seen, it's pretty close.

As for less strange side effects? Certainly less beneficial side effects, but the entire concept and execution seems to be a gamist construct to the point where I can't really think what's actually occuring in a narrative way... And personally I don't think that the striker-paladin is an entirely bad thing. From various reports it sounds to be merely an unusual play style, rather than an excessively powerful one.