brash assault + combat challenge = yay?

[evilbob]

If a warlord uses Brash Assault against a target that is marked by an allied fighter (who is also adjacent to the enemy), and the enemy chooses to attack the warlord, the fighter gets two attacks against that enemy, correct? One immediate interrupt thanks to combat challenge and one free action thanks to the warlord, right?

Just wanted to make sure I read this right.

 

[abyssaldeath]

Yep!

I don't see any enemy actually choosing to attack in that that situation though.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

You got it right, that would give your friend Mr Fighter two attacks against the target of your brash assault.

But how often do you think your DM will give you this cherry on a plate by attacking you (the warlord)?

 

[Piratecat]

As a DM, I'd probably allow it for enemies who aren't tactically adept. Once, at least; they probably would be smart enough not to try it twice.

 

[evilbob]

Since it actually makes this at-will power very useful (for two classes) and it does require some tactical play to set up, I'd say it's pretty reasonable. Sure, intelligent creatures may not fall for it, especially not more than once, but I would think undead and animals would get smacked a lot. And even if something doesn't fall for it, the worst that can happen is you have a useful at-will power.

Thanks for the opinions!

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Since it actually makes this at-will power very useful (for two classes) and it does require some tactical play to set up, I'd say it's pretty reasonable. Sure, intelligent creatures may not fall for it, especially not more than once, but I would think undead and animals would get smacked a lot. And even if something doesn't fall for it, the worst that can happen is you have a useful at-will power.

Thanks for the opinions!

It works exactly as everyone has said. I know someone playing a Warlord who attempts to set this up nearly every combat. But he retrained out of Brash Assault since the character was in LFR. In our city, we have a core of 8 or so DMs. He played games mostly DMed by one DM who refused to take the attack ever by anyone.

I believe the conversation went something like this:

Warlord: "He gets a free attack against me with Combat Advantage."
DM: "But he's marked to the fighter, right? So the fighter gets a free attack against him twice and you get a free attack as well if he takes it?"
Warlord: "Yeah, but he doesn't know that."
DM: "Sure, he does. You just used the power against him and he knows the full text of any power used on him, as per the rules."
Warlord: "Sure, but it's a wolf. It's not smart enough to make that tactical decision."
DM: "Actually, it's precisely BECAUSE he's a wolf that he won't take it. He knows he is marked at an instinctive level and won't attack anyone but his mark."
Warlord: "Sure, whatever."

Then repeat that same conversation again when he used the tactic on an intelligent enemy. Only this time, the DM said that the enemy was too smart to fall for it.

Most of the other DMs he's played with have taken the attack...once, then won't take it again for the rest of the adventure. Once the DM figures out how powerful the combo is, even monsters in encounters who have never seen the power before decide not to take it.

 

[MwaO]

Since it actually makes this at-will power very useful (for two classes) and it does require some tactical play to set up, I'd say it's pretty reasonable. Sure, intelligent creatures may not fall for it, especially not more than once, but I would think undead and animals would get smacked a lot. And even if something doesn't fall for it, the worst that can happen is you have a useful at-will power.

I think it is a badly written power - there's no downside to ignoring the effect and if the enemy does ignore the effect, the Warlord just did a basic melee attack instead of something leader-based.

It should have some sort of "If the enemy chooses to ignore the Warlord, something bad happens."

But it doesn't - given the rules of 4e, no one should be falling for this one.

 

[FireLance]

Yep!

I don't see any enemy actually choosing to attack in that that situation though.

Which is why my warlord has provoke overextension (Warlord encounter attack 7, Martial Power) instead.

 

[ppaladin123]

Speaking of Brash Assault, have you see the new feat Harlequin style (from Art of the Kill in Dragon)?

You get to add your cha-modifier as a power bonus to all your defenses against the free attack thus negating the combat advantage (unless it has sneak attack) and then some. Best of all, the enemy has no way of knowing that you have Harlequin style unless the DM meta-games so you'll probably be able to pull it off a couple of times before the enemy wises up.

On a paragon level half-elf inspiring warlord with versatile mastery it might be worth taking this and retraining out furious smash (since you now have righteous brand as an at-will if you've played your cards right).

 

[Mengu]

As a DM, I'll definitely take the free attack against the warlord

1. If the monster is fairly wounded and likely to die before he gets another turn anyway.
2. If the monster's basic attack renders conditions such as dazed, or knocked prone, or gives some other penalty.
3. If the warlord is bloodied and I think I can do enough damage with a basic attack to take him down.
4. If the warlord has been wreckless and is running low on healing surges, and I feel like punishing him for his wrecklessness.

There is some dependency on DM for the power's usefulness, and as such I can agree that it's not the best design, but it's also the DM's job to help players enjoy the game, so a bit of non-optimal tactics from the DM may be needed to facilitate this in some cases.