Lasting Threat VS Brute Strike

Mal Malenkirk

First Post
Lasting Threat, Martial power p.9, new level 1 daily fighter power.

Look it up. Compare to Brute Strike. That's right, Brute Strike is dead. Lasting threat is same level, does the same damage, is also reliable but additionnaly provide a bonus (a combat long mark) which Brute Strike doesn't do.

So long Brute strike, it was good while it lasted... (unless an errata revive you).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I kind of feel Brute Strike is a little underpowered; Reliable is nice, but it doesn't provide any effect *this* turn. But yah, Lasting Threat is strictly better and an errata needs to be issued on this. But it may be that it's Brute Strike that needs the errata.
 



I don't have MP, so I can't read the text ... but ...
A combat-long mark isn't necessarily a bonus.

See, if you're swinging every turn, you'll have the same effect anyway ... and when you're not swinging, say ... when you're unconscious, you don't want to be marking 'em.
'cos you can expect to eat a CtG and DIE.
 

I don't have MP, so I can't read the text ... but ...
A combat-long mark isn't necessarily a bonus.

See, if you're swinging every turn, you'll have the same effect anyway ... and when you're not swinging, say ... when you're unconscious, you don't want to be marking 'em.
'cos you can expect to eat a CtG and DIE.

Well, by combat long, it really just lasts until the end of the encounter, until the foe is unconscious, or until you are unconscious.

Still, maybe it's balanced by the fact that you can't let the mark end, so if you are low-hp, you can't let some other defender draw the mark?
 


Lasting Threat, Martial power p.9, new level 1 daily fighter power.

Look it up. Compare to Brute Strike. That's right, Brute Strike is dead. Lasting threat is same level, does the same damage, is also reliable but additionnaly provide a bonus (a combat long mark) which Brute Strike doesn't do.

So long Brute strike, it was good while it lasted... (unless an errata revive you).

There's a reason a lot of DMs don't like splatbooks, especially so early in a game's life (before the DM can really evaluate balance by themselves).

Now it's a reason +1 :)
 

If you want to balance them, just take the "reliable" keyword away from Lasting Threat.

I think that would make it too useless.

What might work is removing the "reliable" keyword and turning the encounter-long mark into an "effect" (so even on a miss you cause the mark).

I have to wonder though - if they can't avoid creating 1st level powers which make PHB powers useless, what chance is there for the future of other powers? I would have thought that when reviewing the book it should have stuck out like a sore thumb that a power shouldn't be like an "existing power + bonus" at the same level!

Cheers
 

Pesonally, I don't see the big deal and I don't think that Lasting Threat is strictly speaking better than Brute Strike; its situational. If a fighter uses Brute Strike, they can still mark the opponent, though it follows the standard rules for combat challenge, while Lasting Threat contains a built in exception that lasts the entire ecounter. Basically, it comes down to the tactical decision of flexibility. Do you want the target to be marked the entire encounter no matter what, or do you want the flexibility of deciding whether the target is marked (and have the ability for another defender to mark the target)? Party composition, health concerns, and the tactical considerations of the encounter ultimately decide whether Lasting Threat is better than Brute Strike.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top