Lasting Threat VS Brute Strike

[Doctor Proctor]

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.

Exactly. Those saying that Lasting Threat is better are assuming that an encounter long mark is only a bonus. Since you have be adjacent to use the attack, that means that the target will take an OA if they move away or a CCII attack for shifting or attacking an ally. Since this is sort of an "Anti-BBEG" power, that means you just made it very dangerous for that BBEG to get away. Plus, he's going to have a permanent -2 to attack on anyone else, instead of the normal temporary one.

Plus, since you can't dismiss the mark, let it lapse, or have someone else override it, that means that you become the BBEG's main target for the rest of the encounter. This can be a big negative if the battle starts going bad. If you get bloodied and your party is low on healing, that BBEG is still going to come after you to finish you off.

So yeah, it can be great if the battle is going well...if it's not, then it means that your Fighter is going to get taken down. It's essentially a big gamble. Brute Strike, on the other hand, is a big damage power that doesn't mark for the full encounter. So if the BBEG turns around and nails you with a big attack you can actually pull back and use your second wind and get away for a minute. If you have other Defenders in your party then they can mark him and divert his attention between multiple targets. So Brute Strike can be used as a heavy damage power that still gives you some additional options in the rest of the encounter. Lasting Threat does not.

 

[Runestar]

I don't think it is entirely true to claim that a marked enemy is going to want to target the fighter exclusively over and above other PCs. True, he has incentive, because he receives a penalty if he doesn't, but to say that he will attack only the fighter seems a little too ....

This can be a big negative if the battle starts going bad. If you get bloodied and your party is low on healing, that BBEG is still going to come after you to finish you off.

If the party fighter was badly injured, I as a DM, am still going to have my BBEG target the fighter in an attempt to push him over the edge and finish him off, mark or no mark. The drawbacks of being marked is just a pitiful -2 to-hit and possible a little radiant damage (if you are a paladin), I don't see why my npc would suddenly want to target someone else, even if he is not marked. The fighter is certainly no less viable of a target...

Perhaps you are correct to say that a lasting mark can become a liability under certain conditions, but I personally think that it is generally more of a boon. So in the long run, the fighter should still be better off (eg: it is useful in say, 7/10 of encounters, and a drawback in 3/10, so you still come out ahead). A fighter's job is to tank, after all.

 

[Victim]

With a normal mark, this is true. When you're talking an encounter long mark, it's different though. Even if the BBEG ignores the Fighter and the Fighter goes off an engages another target, the BBEG has a permanent -2 to hit. This will get annoying after awhile, and the only way to get rid of it is to knock the Fighter out.

I don't see why a DM would legitimately ignore this penalty. I mean, would you take a flat -2 to all your attacks with no benefit for an entire encounter? Of course not! But that's what's happening here. As long as the Fighter conscious, the enemy he perma-marked is getting a -2 to every attack he makes. As a DM, I would make it a priority to take down the Fighter that did this, because it makes hitting anyone much more difficult.

A better comparison might be, who would you rather attack? An enemy that granted permanent combat advantage, or one who didn't? This is effectively what's happened, in that the Fighter is going to be at a permanent +2 to hit compared to the other party members. Ignoring this mark means that everyone else is harder to hit, and you risk incurring multiple CCII or OA attacks from the Fighter if you do anything other than attack him.

Yeah, assuming equal defenses. However, a fighter type might have Plate, Heavy Shield, PP abilities, etc that improve his defense relative to the other characters who might have Chain armor or something. Attacking AC 25 at a -2 penalty is better than attacking AC 30 without it.

And there's the matter of damage distribution. It might be worth taking a penalty to hit if you can knock someone low on health out.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

I don't think it is entirely true to claim that a marked enemy is going to want to target the fighter exclusively over and above other PCs. True, he has incentive, because he receives a penalty if he doesn't, but to say that he will attack only the fighter seems a little too ....

With a normal mark, this is true. When you're talking an encounter long mark, it's different though. Even if the BBEG ignores the Fighter and the Fighter goes off an engages another target, the BBEG has a permanent -2 to hit. This will get annoying after awhile, and the only way to get rid of it is to knock the Fighter out.

I don't see why a DM would legitimately ignore this penalty. I mean, would you take a flat -2 to all your attacks with no benefit for an entire encounter? Of course not! But that's what's happening here. As long as the Fighter conscious, the enemy he perma-marked is getting a -2 to every attack he makes. As a DM, I would make it a priority to take down the Fighter that did this, because it makes hitting anyone much more difficult.

A better comparison might be, who would you rather attack? An enemy that granted permanent combat advantage, or one who didn't? This is effectively what's happened, in that the Fighter is going to be at a permanent +2 to hit compared to the other party members. Ignoring this mark means that everyone else is harder to hit, and you risk incurring multiple CCII or OA attacks from the Fighter if you do anything other than attack him.

 

[Runestar]

I don't see why a DM would legitimately ignore this penalty. I mean, would you take a flat -2 to all your attacks with no benefit for an entire encounter? Of course not! But that's what's happening here. As long as the Fighter conscious, the enemy he perma-marked is getting a -2 to every attack he makes. As a DM, I would make it a priority to take down the Fighter that did this, because it makes hitting anyone much more difficult.

Well, it is simply a matter of weighing the benefits against the costs.

That the foe in question will be marked permanently is already set in stone, so there is no point harping about it. Now, you need to ask yourself this question: Is it worth it for me to take a -2 to-hit to attack another PC, or attack the fighter (even if it may not be tactically the best option at the moment)?

Yes, I will likely still attack the fighter whenever the opportunity presents itself, but I can't see myself going out of my way to target the fighter exclusively over everyone else, especially if it is not worth it (eg: the fighter is way at the back and getting to him will involve provoking a lot of AoOs from the other PCs, or it may simply be more worthwhile to attack a nearby PC despite the penalties I will rack up).

To me, it is simply a sunk cost. Suck up the penalty pertaining to the marked condition, then make my decisions as though it never existed.

 

[knasser]

I don't see why a DM would legitimately ignore this penalty.

Think about what you're saying for a minute. If it's a penalty, then the player would theoretically want the DM to ignore it. If the players don't want the DM to ignore the penalty because it's worse for them if he does, then they've already answered their own question as to whether it is legitimate for the DM to ignore it. The marked opponent is presumably smart enough to decide strategy.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

Well, it is simply a matter of weighing the benefits against the costs.

That the foe in question will be marked permanently is already set in stone, so there is no point harping about it. Now, you need to ask yourself this question: Is it worth it for me to take a -2 to-hit to attack another PC, or attack the fighter (even if it may not be tactically the best option at the moment)?

Yes, I will likely still attack the fighter whenever the opportunity presents itself, but I can't see myself going out of my way to target the fighter exclusively over everyone else, especially if it is not worth it (eg: the fighter is way at the back and getting to him will involve provoking a lot of AoOs from the other PCs, or it may simply be more worthwhile to attack a nearby PC despite the penalties I will rack up).

To me, it is simply a sunk cost. Suck up the penalty pertaining to the marked condition, then make my decisions as though it never existed.

Unless the Fighter disengages himself, there's no way for him to get to the back. It's a melee power, not ranged. The enemy could try and disengage, but he'd be provoking attacks for doing so, and even once he's disengaged the Fighter just effectively gave everyone else in the party a +2 to AC.

As you said, you need weigh the benefits and the costs of using the power. I'm not saying it's not good, just that "Lasting Threat > Brute Strike" is not set in stone.

 

[Stalker0]

While I agree that a permanent mark may not be great every single round of every fight, I think in the VAST majority of cases, it highly useful. The fighter is a defender after all, he generally wants to mark.

I think the power is ultimately better than brute strike, but as I said before I don't have a problem with that, I think brute strike is a weak power compared to the other phb alternatives, so I'm happy for something with 3[w] damage and a little kick at the end.

 

[Turtlejay]

I saw this as a great power for a multiclassed fighter to take. One battle a day he can function almost like a real fighter. Pretty cool.

And as for downsides, our party has two defenders, if the fighter used this power on a solo fight, then the other defender would lose a core class ability. So, not necissarily universally better.

I do think it is better in 90% of situations, though. To be honest, the fighter *should* be the primary attack of any serious threat. That is his job. Only in some situations will he not want this to be the case.

Jay

 

[nittanytbone]

Is there language that specifically prevents the mark from being overridden by another defender?

If not, then I don't see why a second defender can't mark the critter which will make the first mark go away. A creature can only be subject to one mark at a time...