Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5209289" data-attributes="member: 2011">First off, the Warlord has to hit.Second, the +1 could be for one attack per round.Nothing says that this is unbalanced, it just has to be designed well. It can work.+1 is not that huge of a bonus to one PC for an entire encounter.It might sound like that, but it's hardly an apt comparison.No, it really isn't. Slow hardly does squat in 4E. There is almost always someone within 4 squares of a foe, at least in the published modules.There are some unique scenarios where this might be powerful, but it would be rare.So, the current Combat Challenge implementation is flawed because it does damage only???I consider it fairly sticky, at least in my games. To each their own.I'm not sure you understood the concept. He could do this at any time, just like Combat Challenge today. It doesn't require flank.Combat Challenge: If a foe is within melee attack range of the Fighter and the Fighter can attack, the foe is threatened (i.e. marked) and Combat Challenge works as it does today.The only difference is that one does not have to keep track of that mark. If the miniature is next to the Fighter miniature, the foe is threatened. No bookkeeping necessary.It actually makes Combat Challenge a little bit stronger and the Fighter a little bit stickier because every foe around the Fighter is always "marked".The players just don't need to use the marked terminology and they don't need to do bookkeeping for it. It would be a Fighter Class feature called Combat Challenged. No mark involved. The monsters are "threatened" instead.</blockquote>

Verification