Lead the Attack vs. solo monsters: unbalancing?

[Tony Vargas]

If it is a FAIR fight without this power, its an EASY one if it hits. Hence, it is unbalancing.

Not at all. Fights aren't balanced vs PCs bereft of thier dailies - nor presumbably, vs ones that have all thier dailies, and all thier dailies being perfect for that particular fight - thier balanced against the general case of a party that probably has some dailies that may or may not be well-suited to the fight at hand.

When the party happens to have the right daily still available, a regular fight will be easier, or a hard one more winnable. If the party has blown all thier dailies (or is conserving them all), even an easy encounter may be tough.

Resource management is a critical aspect of 4e.

Lead the Attack is well suited to a Solo encounter. So is Pin the Foe. So, I'm sure, are other dailies. OTOH, different dailies may be well suited to dealing with other sorts of encounters. A wizard's fireball is of minor help against a solo, but highly effective against a line of soldiers, and overwhelming to a crowd of minions.


Check out the Black Dragon boredom thread:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=230901


Something like Lead the Attack makes a solo encounter dramatically winnable. If you try to slog through a hard solo encounter's massive hps by just plinking your at wills against his high defenses, you'll have a very long fight on your hands - if not a TPK.

 

[MarkChevallier]

where is this explained in the core rulebooks?

It is not explained anywhere in the core rulebooks, because it is not a rule. The RAW do not say anything at all about the power dropping when the warlock drops. As written, I see the power as functioning when activated and having a continuing effect on those that were in range when it took place. Other interpretations can be made, but seem to me to require taking Occam's Razor and throwing it in the bin.

 

[helium3]

As the guy who ran "Do Black Dragons Dream of Acidic Sheep?" I have to say that the power being described sounds awesome. It would've made the encounter go faster, but not THAT much faster. Can't speak to exactly how much since I haven't done the DPR calc.

As for the guy that said a +5 was expensive, "Yeah. But not as expensive as you'd think."

Intelligence is one of the secondary stats for the class and I had zero problems getting any secondary stat into the +3 range. If you're playing a tactical warlord, a +4 bonus to hit for the rest of the encounter is no trouble at all.

Regarding the question of whether the effect ends if the Warlord is dropped? I looked in the two sections of the PHB that have rules on the matter and the question of whether or not the duration of an "until end of encounter" power and how it interacts with getting knocked unconcious isn't addressed.

This is unlike sustainable powers (which Lead The Charge is not) where the rules specifically call out what happens to a sustainable zone when the creator dies. In short, it ends.

I think this is another example of a "rules situation" the dev's intentionally left blank. The idea being (my personal theory) that groups will have to develop there own set of house rules to cover these situations. Besides, leaving a bunch of "fill in the rule here" spots gives the rules lawyers something to do.

Or, I haven't seen the relevant rules text yet.

 

[Cadfan]

You say unbalanced, I say totally awesome.

Just wait until someone pulls out that per encounter paladin paragon path ability that essentially permanently Weakens and Dazes the target, no save.

 

[Vaeron]

This is how warlord's are *supposed* to work. And they were playtested with this ability in play. Most of warlord's abilities help the allies, or position the allies, so it's cool they get one that makes them say "Wow, I really made a big difference there." Especially since solos get a bonus to their defense above and beyond what regular monsters get - meaning players still aren't guaranteed to hit the creature even with this ability active.

The difference between a party with a warlord and one without isn't immediately obvious - but they do play far differently. A warlord brings incredible tactical power to the table, if utilized correctly. I've DMed 4e a bit, but got my first chance to play on game day. We played for 9 to 9. The warlord made amazing contributions, and a smart player should be able to do great things with the class.

 

[brehobit]

In answer to the poster.
Lead the attack is hugely powerful against solos. It is the best reason to play a "smart" warlord. Even at higher levels, if you are fighting a solo, you'd be better taking this twice than you would doing any other daily.

So I'd say it's overpowered. It can be expected to move DPS up by 30-60% if it hits.

 

[Doc Eldritch]

Here is the thing I think most people forget: A solo monster does not mean it HAS to be encountered alone! It can be, and can/should be able to handle a group on its own, but if you have XP left for the encounter, give it some minions or something.

Otherwise, certain powers WILL obliterate a solo. Take Seal of Binding (Cleric Attack 25) mixed with Divine Regeneration (Demigod Utility 26). That allows the cleric to solo almost any solo monster. Give the solo some allies and it is not such a problem anymore.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

My own experience with this:

A warlord PC severely screwed over an elite "boss" in an encounter. He had Int 16 (so everyone got +4 to hit). Combined with the rogue blinding him with his daily power, and the boss was spanked badly (to death).

However, the rest of the monsters got some good hits before dying/attempting to flee.

I don't think it's too hard on a solo, though. They get +4 AC, right? Maybe it's a problem at higher levels, though.

 

[phil500]

Not at all. Fights aren't balanced vs PCs bereft of thier dailies - nor presumbably, vs ones that have all thier dailies, and all thier dailies being perfect for that particular fight - thier balanced against the general case of a party that probably has some dailies that may or may not be well-suited to the fight at hand.

My whole point is : its not about whether or not they saved their dailies, its about whether this ONE daily hits.

You say unbalanced, I say totally awesome.

Just wait until someone pulls out that per encounter paladin paragon path ability that essentially permanently Weakens and Dazes the target, no save.

Yeah, i like awesome too. But 4E claimed it wanted to (and did a great job) approach balance.

Like morrus said, what makes 4E awesome is that you as a DM can use strategy and try to kill the players, not cheat rolls and saves so you do not.

In answer to the poster.
Lead the attack is hugely powerful against solos. It is the best reason to play a "smart" warlord. Even at higher levels, if you are fighting a solo, you'd be better taking this twice than you would doing any other daily.

So I'd say it's overpowered. It can be expected to move DPS up by 30-60% if it hits.

Yes, thank you for explaining it for me. you cant balance an encounter with a margin of error of such a great percentage. so the encounter will come down to one power hitting.

 

[Gloombunny]

Lots of the replies here are along the lines of "solos are really tough, so it's ok for solo-killing powers to be strong" or "dailies are supposed to be strong, so it's ok for this daily to be strong". And those answers totally ignore the real question, which is "is this daily, and the class that has it, balanced against other dailies and other party configurations?"