Query about final confrontation

[HighTemplar]

Great question, Like most people who read that power, we all figured something was fishy...

As you said, a monster dealing less damage would be likely to cease attacking unless hes incredibly stupid or bloodthirsty. Here are the two solutions I've though of for the barbarian. First off, the barbarian might realise that the only way he's going to deal massive amounts of damage,is if he's willing to get even more hurt which he might definately agree on. say he does 75 dmg, but gets hit for 100, he still landed 75 dmg, it might have been a high price, but if there's only 2 enemies left, this might have brought the combat to a close and the barbarian might not even really be in danger. My other idea is that if the barbarian is smart, he might want to play bluffs or tactics with his target and toy with him. Like relinquish certain bonuses he has to hit, in order to miss the foe more often. Afterall, this is a lot fo gambling. the monster's decision on retaliating should be made after every attack. If the barbrian seems to deal a lot fo dmg when he hits, but seems to be missing quite often, the monster might be thinking he's winning this thing while after a coupple of rounds tha barbarian goes all out and merks the monster into forfeiting.

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.

Why 50%, does this come from he can either do it, or dont, so two choices, so 50%... nothing is even close from suggesting that both options should be equally weighted(or maybe you didnt want to imply that?).

Rolling might be legitimate, but it also might be very stupid, as you can calculate probabilistically how many attacks are going to be averaged, and those will always be pretty low compared to the huge damage dealing potential that makes this power super duper cool.

 

[Larrin]

Here's how i see it:

1) they wanted the frenzied berserker to have an ability to initiate a sort of "Keep swinging until one of us is dead"

2) they didn't want it to be unavoidable death for one or the other (ie a buffed, high resistance barbarian never missing and never taking damage OR a small miscalculation on the power of the enemy dooming you to certain death

Thus they put in an escape clause. Neither party HAS to fight to the death. Its a huge amount of damage just on its own, and in a lot of cases the 'showdown' is just gravy, regardless of how many swings you get in. But they can, and (hopefully) the DM will let them use it now and again to some effect (against an elite or two) while not having to worry that their solo-dragon will be forced into an inescapable death match on round 1. I like it. You have to choose your showdowns.

Sure a DM can permanently nerf it by never striking back, but this isn't the only power to have this possibility (though perhaps it is the most obvious), and you still get 7d10-14d6 damage as a consolation prize.

 

[Runestar]

There has to be some way of breaking scarab of invulnerability (AV) here...

 

[James McMurray]

There has to be some way of breaking scarab of invulnerability (AV) here...

If you can have another party member dominate the target, it's guaranteed death, assuming the GM agrees that "you choose the target's action" means you also choose what free actions it takes while dominated.