Query about final confrontation

[Runestar]

This is with regards to the frenzied berserker's capstone ability, final confrontation in the barb playtest article.

Final Confrontation Frenzied Berserker Attack 20
Your rage spills over to your foe, locking the two of you in
a lethal duel.
Daily ✦ Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Effect: Before the attack, if the target is marked, that
condition ends on it. It can then make a melee basic
attack against you as a free action.
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 7[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Miss: Half damage.
Effect: After the attack, you can allow the target to make a
melee basic attack against you as a free action. If the
target makes that attack, you can make a melee basic attack against it as a free action. You can repeat this effect until the target chooses not to make the attack. D

Lets be honest with ourselves. While the entry does state "target chooses", in reality, it is the DM who decides whether the monster opts to make the extra attacks. This makes the power extremely swingy and unreliable (buttload of damage dealt not withstanding), and the player in an extremely tricky position.

If the FB is in a favourable position to trade attacks (eg: wearing a scarab of invulnerability from AV), the DM can just choose to have the monster not follow up. The only time the DM would take the FB up on his offer would be if the monster gained more than it lost (in terms of damage output, or some other factor), which in turn means that it is to the FB's detriment, and he would be forced to abort.

As such, this makes me wonder - what sort of guidelines do you have when/if determining when the target monster should retaliate, and when it should stop doing so? I want opinions from both ends of the spectrum, be it solely from a mathematical perspective, or roleplaying perspective.

 

[darkadelphia]

I was thinking about this issue, and one of my thoughts was this--there are times when both targets would be happy to throw attacks at each other. The Barbarian may WANT to be bloodied. This is the situation, I suspect, where a lot of attacks are likely to get traded back and forth. The Barbarian is putting out less damage than the monster, but that's okay because the Barbarian wants to be bloodied. Also, remember that, in general, a monster's basic attack is a lot cooler than a PCs. So, the monster is happy to spam its basic attack while the Barbarian knows the leader will be there to pick up the pieces. Win/win.

 

[amysrevenge]

Well, from a rules standpoint the moster/NPC would know the exact details of the power (the nature of the attack swapping).

The monster/NPC might not be aware of any equipment the Barbarian is wearing until after the equipment does something. At that point it's DM discretion - I apply the same notion of konwing about powers to knowing about items after they've been used. So in my game, after the first hit, the monster/NPC would know about any damage mitigating items and decide accordingly.

 

[Tale]

I see this as incredibly useful against low int enemies. A troll or Orc isn't going to rationalize that hitting you may be a stupid idea. It's the only idea he's got!

He understands that you'll hit him back. He wants you to stop hitting him. Well, he's only got one tool in his toolbox to accomplish that and it's hitting back.

 

[jedrious]

I would go by role really, a controller or artillery wouldn't dream of doing it, a melee skirmisher that can activate bonus damage on each hit would, a brute would, a soldier probably would because he has a higher likelyhood of being missed

 

[Ibn Khaldun]

It really comes down to whether you trust your DM to roleplay the enemy or meta-game it.

 

[Squire James]

Well, if you don't trust the DM, why are you playing the game with him at all?

I guess it depends on the "fight or flight" instinct of the particular monster involved. If it's the kind of monster that don't mind "duking it out" at close range, then they would probably try attacking a bit more. I'd probably have just about anything stop after 3 exchanges, just to keep the power from getting too silly.

When in doubt, there's a 50% chance the monster will attack. Add situational modifiers to taste.

 

[666Sinner666]

The DM could always just roll percentage dice and anything 50 or higher for a brute, soldier, skimisher or the like would start trading blows and the DM could roll after each exchange. This way its all in the hands of dice. Controllers and the like would of course do what they could to get the hell out and no dice roll would be necessary. This is how the power should have been written IMHO anyways.

When in doubt leave it to the dice.

 

[James McMurray]

If it's a melee monster, they're likely to do it. They're probably better off trading basic attacks 1:1 than they are taking their one action over the next few rounds while the PCs take one action each. They get the same number of licks in either way, but can't get ganged up on.

This power will be nice against stunned or surprised targets. A that points it's a straight 7[W] shot with no repercussions at all. That's massive at 20th level. The closest any other PP I can think of gets is 6[W], and those come with requirements or they do lower damage.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

As a DM I see one problme...PCs upset when I say 'No..." look at him funny "The lich doesn't want to go blow for blow"
or even worse "Do I even have a melee attack?!?!?!?" look at stats

However I see my Orcs ogers, and giants knocking the PC down but taking a but load of damage along the way, just to be droped by the rest of the PCs...