Forked Thread: Art of the Peel ... Enfeebling vs Bosltering Strike

[Bluewyrm]

Forked from: Art of the Peel

While I don't really care to dive into Carpe DM's argument that Paladins don't defend well enough over Strikers, part of his argument seemed to rely on the idea that Enfeebling Strike is the worst of the Paladin at-will abilities. This sort of "incensed me", as I consider far-and-away the best Paladin at-will, so I figured I'd throw in my two cents.




Here's my rationale:
0) My argument relies heavily on the idea that the Chaladin is the better build option for Paladins, which I think it's class-features and role make more or less self-evident, but the original post implied that it was the worst of all the at-wills, including Bolstering Strike.

1) Enfeebling Strike can help everyone, as opposed to just the Paladin. The basic point of the Paladin is to "defend", that is to ensure that his allies don't get hit, while at the same time, staying up himself (often done by ensuring that he also doesn't get hit by wearing heavy armour). The -2 on all of his attack rolls helps ensure he hits no one, including you, not only on his own turn, but on all his Opp Atts as well... this means the benefit will apply at least once, if not multiple times, which is more then Bolstering Strike can muster, since it always only works the once (provided you even get attacked... otherwise it does nothing)
2) The -2 applies until the end of your next turn. This means it will penalize the enemy on his own turn, and any opp atts he will get on your next turn as well. You use your movement to invoke an Opp Att, while at the same time getting into a better position, providing a flank or maybe getting in touch range for a Lay on Hands. If the opponent takes the Opp Att, he still gets a -2 to hit. If you combo this with On Pain of Death, he will take damage to boot.
3) Essentially Bolster makes you take less damage from your next attack, provided they actually attack you. Enfeebling Strike gives you a better chance of not being hit at all, which should be about equal in most cases, and in some cases significantly better.
4) Bolster gives you Temp HP, which are nice because they last indefinitely until you get hit. Problem is they don't stack. This makes a difference, not only for your own further uses of Bolstering Strike, but also for the Cleric as well. One of his better powers, Sacred Flame, gives Temp HP, and his gives them much better than yours does (Cha + 1/2 level, as opposed to your own Cha + nothing). Debuffs like -2 to attack always stack, regardless of their source. Meaning if the opponent of Enfeebling Strike, once marked, suffers a whopping -4 to all his attacks against allies. Against certain foes (boss-monsters, so forth), this is like giving every ally +4 to his AC (while you still get +2).

The few advantages Bolster has over Enfeebling:
1) Bolster's benefit lasts the whole encounter. But only sort of. It's more accurate to say that they only last until you get hit, at which point the benefits all basically go away...
2) Enfeebling Strike's benefit only works against a marked opponent. However, if I remember, Paladins at the very least need to stay adjacent to an opponent for his marks to stay around anyway, or attack him, so this isn't that big a deal.


So when would I use Bolster?
It's great for attacking minions. You're going to kill them anyway, who cares if they have -2 to attacks after they are dead? This same logic applies to anyone you think you are likely to drop with your next attack anyway.
If you absolutely want to attack a different opponent then the one you have marked.

After playing through and running a few games, I'm discovering that monsters still find it in their best interest to ignore the tanking paladin, and tear into the strikers. In our game (which I am not DMing, for the first time in 25 years) the paladin does his best: piercing smites every encounter, etc, divine challenges galore. And, the Chaladin damage on the challenge is not all that bad.

But it's still in the mob's best interest to drop the striker. Given that 14 or 15 is standard AC for a first level squishy, the -2 AC isn't enough to deter the monster from wanting to shut down the low-HP, high-damage party members.

What this does is force the paladin into a very crappy role: that of peeler. He is throwing Enfeebling Strikes (often considered the worst at-will) in an attempt to decrease the damage output of the mob on the strikers. And, of course, his damage is quite high given that his marked target is eating his challenge every round.

But the monster's better damage output on the strikers, combined with the damage loss that the loss of a striker entails means that it is entirely rational from the monster's point of view that a wizard or warlock ends up tanking every single fight. It's getting pretty old.

Note: this is *not* a DM complaint. The DM is quite right: monsters fight to win, and don't hammer uselessly on the shiny armor-plated guy. This is, IMO, a design tweak problem. The damage-incentive system is simply insufficient to incentivize monsters--even challenged monsters--to stay on the tank.

We've tried to increase the damage, but since Astral Fire only adds to "damage rolls," and because there is no feat upgrade to Divine Challenge, there's not a whole lot to be done.

This leads to my current inquiry. Enfeebling Strike is commonly considered the worst Paladin at-will. It is a major downer for the paladin to continually use his worst power in a vain attempt to perform the role of tank (now starring the Wizard).

So, the current question: at what damage value, and at what estimated level of monster hitpoints would Holy Strike (or Valiant, if the Paladin is sufficiently surrounded) outperform Enfeebling Strike as a peel--that is, the extra damage would drop the monsters enough rounds early that it would be worth more defensively than the -10% damage of Enfeelbling.

It's complicated, of course, because for minions, any attack will do, and Enfeebling is +Cha (so, for a protecting paladin, is better). At the mid-range, though, either Valiant or Holy is likely to drop a standard creature some fraction of a round early.

Of course, due to bloodied values, we get a good view of the hitpoints of a creature. So I'm hoping that by discussing things here, we can work out a metric to tell the paladin -- "hey, it took 20 points to get the thing to bloodied. Best switch to Valiant strike and try to drop it early."

Math on this is particularly welcome. Please, no discretionary gameplay-based remarks (OMGz ur DM shud onlee attak the tnak!). I'm fully aware the DM could fix this if he decided the monsters were idiots. I find that if the DM must compensate for poor rules by deciding to not use an ability (OMGz ur DM shud not attak pipl on the ground!) that that is merely apologetics for bad game design.

best,

Carpe

 

[Celtavian]

re

I don't see the problem with Enfeebling Strike. If you hit, it is very nice.

I use a combination of Enfeebling strike and Bolstering Strike in single combat. If the strikers with me want to draw aggro while I just swing away and do damage with my divine challenge, I'm fine with that.

I'd be quite happy with a DM like Carpe DM that chose to let me boost my own damage output by letting an enemy ignore me taking Cha damage every round. That wouldn't bother me at all. I'd probably equal striker damage output every round if I get to add my Cha and then some to my attack.
I'd be like a striker then as well as giving a -2 penalty to hit.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think the downside to Enfeebling Strike is that its special ability rarely affects combat.


Let's compare the special abilities of each:

1) Bolstering Strike. Not always, but this often drops Wis Mod damage from multiple attacks on the Paladin per encounter. The weakness of the Paladin or any Defender is that he is up front and typically getting attacked more than most other PC. So, he tends to often run out of Healing Surges first in a party, even though he has so many (Lay on Hands contributes to this as well). This could easily save 2 or maybe 3 Healing surges per day.

Overall, this is a good ability to have. The downside is that once the Paladin has the temporary hit points, he cannot gain more from attacking with Bolstering Strike again until he gets hit.


2) Enfeebling Strike. Although it sounds good on the surface, it is the equivalent of one fewer attacks hitting every ten times the enemy swings. Regardless of opponent of the Enfeebled NPC, the outcome of its attack is typically unchanged 90% of the time. So, it might help once per Encounter (on average). It is only when the enemy has multiple attacks (possibly with OA) that the odds here improve at all.

Plus, it can only be done on a Marked enemy, so it is limited to one opponent at a time.

Overall, this is not that impressive when compared to other Paladin attacks. It has its uses, but they typically won't result in a significant gain on any given encounter.


3) Holy Strike. This is a very good power. The additional ability adds to damage every time the Paladin hits unlike Enfeebling Strike which may or may not affect combat in a given Encounter at all (or may affect an encounter many times, but usually doesn't). For ten Holy Strike successful attacks at +2 Wis damage each, that would be 20 extra points of damage whereas protecting PCs with Enfeebling Strike would typically result in a lot less than saving 20 points of damage in return (although it could stop a condition). At +3 or +4 (or more) Wisdom, it's even better.

Like Bolstering Strike, Holy Strike will often save Healing Surges. But, it does it by damaging foes faster, not by protecting the Paladin more.


4) Valiant Strike. Like Enfeebling Strike, this one is conditionally helpful. Unlike Enfeebling Strike, the amount this helps is variable. That means that it is real useful the more adjacent opponents the Paladin has. But since Holy Strike is so solid, it is reasonable to typically only use Valiant Strike with 3 or more opponents, just to increase the likelihood of doing damage. This is especially true with minions where the special abilities of Enfeebling Strike and Holy Strike are irrelevant. This is the Paladin anti-minion At-Will power. None of the others compare.


The main claim to fame that a Chaladin has is that his Mark typically does more damage than a Str Paladin. This means that he is slightly more sticky as a Defender which is good. However, it also means that he typically takes the two At-Will attack powers which are somewhat less useful overall.

Bolstering Strike is less useful due to the fact that it cannot typically be used to gain its special ability every round and Enfeebling Strike is less useful due to the fact that its special abiilty tends to only help out once per encounter.


The other problem with being a Chaladin is that the At-Will Basic Melee attacks are based on Str, not Cha. So, the Chaladin will not be fulfilling part of his role with OAs for opponents that try to leave his vicinity as well as a Str Paladin, nor when charging.

So, to be slightly stickier to one opponent at a time, a Chaladin has to take slightly less useful and potent At-Will powers and gives up a bit on Basic Attacks. This does not, however, say anything about Encounter or Daily powers, just how the At-Will powers match up between the two.


Btw, as PCs get higher levels, monster hit points increase a lot faster. Monster defenses also tend to increase by about 1 per level whereas PCs attacks do not (PCs have to gain magic items and use synergy bonuses to make up the difference). Because of this, 4E is an offensive (and healing) game instead of a defensive game. The Chaladin is a more defensive style than a Str Paladin, hence, by definition he will start to fall behind a bit unless the potency and utility of Cha based Encounter or Daily powers make up the difference.

 

[Solodan]

Indeed, a -2 to attack is very very good. I must counter that it is not "good only 10% of the time" which, while is true at face value, the reality is that, say, a monster who hits 50% of the time now hits 30% (marked and -2) against someone else. That's a MASSIVE boost. Add that to the hefty cha-based damage of the divine challenge, and the math quickly looks bad for whoever the chaladin is trying to peel.

 

[KarinsDad]

Indeed, a -2 to attack is very very good. I must counter that it is not "good only 10% of the time" which, while is true at face value, the reality is that, say, a monster who hits 50% of the time now hits 30% (marked and -2) against someone else. That's a MASSIVE boost. Add that to the hefty cha-based damage of the divine challenge, and the math quickly looks bad for whoever the chaladin is trying to peel.

Err, no. Your logic is misleading here. The reality really is the following:

Say the creature hits 50% of the time. Marked takes it to 40% of the time for BOTH the Chaladin and the Str Paladin against other PCs. Enfeebling Strike takes it to 30% for the Chaladin.

Let's compare on a graph (C Chaladin, P Paladin, D Difference, M Miss, H Hit):

C: MMMMMMMMMMMMMMHHHHHH (30%)
P: MMMMMMMMMMMMHHHHHHHH (40%)
D: ............XX...... (10%)

90% of the time (assuming it hits), there is no difference between getting the extra -2 from Enfeebling and not getting it. The only time it makes a difference is when the creature rolls a 13 or a 14. In that case, he misses for the Chaladin and hits with the Paladin.

This is not huge. In fact, it's very tiny.

When combined with the fact that the Chaladin too will only hit on ~50% of his attacks (and not all 100% of his attacks are Enfeebling, some are his other At-Will power, some are Basic, some are Encounter, and some are Daily), this means that Enfeebling will on average prevent another PC from getting hit less than once every 20 attacks (which typically means, less than once every 20 rounds).

Whoop de doo. One encounter in two if he's lucky, Enfeebling Strike stops an attack against someone.

Enfeebling doesn't mean hardly anything in the large scheme of things.


Divine Challenge marked, on the other hand, gives the -2 on every attack against a different PC and is a slight damage advantage for the Chaladin over the Str Paladin (he gives up the advantage on charges and OAs to gain this advantage though). Divine Challenge is a huge ability.


But, Enfeebling Strike hardly does jack compared to Valiant Strike hitting more often and Holy Strike doing more damage. These powers will end encounters quicker. A dead enemy cannot counterattack and 4E is a game of enemy attrition and offense.

 

[Zelc]

A -2 to hit is better than you give credit for, since penalties to attack have INCREASING returns. If the monster started with a 50% chance to hit, it only has a 30% chance to hit against one of your allies. Enfeebling Strike contributes 10% of that decrease. This 10% decrease in chance to hit actually results in a 25% decrease in the monster's damage output. If the monster's original expected damage is D*0.4, ES lowers it by D*0.1, and (D*0.1)/(D*0.4) = 1/4 = 25%. For attacks against you, it translates to a 20% decrease in the expected number of hits you take (it's not just damage, don't forget rider effects).

This gets a lot better if paired with other attacks that give an attack penalty. Suppose somehow the monster also took another -4 attack. Now the Enfeebled monster only has a 10% chance to hit, and Enfeebling Strike contributed 10% of the decrease. Enfeebling Strike becomes the equivalent of a 50% decrease in expected damage not to mention avoiding the rider effects of attacks.

Compare with Holy Strike. Let's say this is level 30, you hit with the at-will power 4 times per encounter (so you swing 8 times with 50% hit), and you have a +7 Wisdom modifier. Woohoo, you deal an extra 28 damage per encounter. That's around 10% of an average normal monster's HP at that level, and you'll probably be facing at least 3 of those normal monsters. Not that great.

Enfeebling Strike hitting 4 times per encounter, assuming the monster makes five attack rolls while affected (not so hard with an extra attack or AoE attacks), means one enemy attack every two encounters that would have hit misses instead. Its effects are obviously more variable. It should be a lot better against a solo creature, or creatures that make lots of attacks.

At level 1, Holy Strike certainly looks better, adding around 1/9 of an average normal monster's HP per hit. But then, Bolstering Strike looks pretty good too, cutting the damage you take roughly in half.

 

[KarinsDad]

A -2 to hit is better than you give credit for, since penalties to attack have INCREASING returns. If the monster started with a 50% chance to hit, it only has a 30% chance to hit against one of your allies. Enfeebling Strike contributes 10% of that decrease. This 10% decrease in chance to hit actually results in a 25% decrease in the monster's damage output. If the monster's original expected damage is D*0.4, ES lowers it by D*0.1, and (D*0.1)/(D*0.4) = 1/4 = 25%. For attacks against you, it translates to a 20% decrease in the expected number of hits you take (it's not just damage, don't forget rider effects).

25% decrease in damage output for one round for one creature (on average) for a Paladin that hits 50% of the time. So, that 25% just dropped to 12.5% on average for multiple rounds. If the Paladin does not do Enfeebling Strike every time, it drops even more. For one creature, this might drop its damage per round average by 10% at low level and maybe 5% at high level (assuming Enfeebling Strike is used a lot).

This gets a lot better if paired with other attacks that give an attack penalty. Suppose somehow the monster also took another -4 attack. Now the Enfeebled monster only has a 10% chance to hit, and Enfeebling Strike contributed 10% of the decrease. Enfeebling Strike becomes the equivalent of a 50% decrease in expected damage not to mention avoiding the rider effects of attacks.

The creature that does 30 points of damage per attack 50% of the time averages 15 points of damage per round.

If the creature was lowered by -6 (the other -4 you mention and the -2 for Divine Challenge), it would average 6 points of damage per round. So, lowering it another -2 does drop it by 50%. But, it is 50% of 6 points. It does an average of 3 points of damage per round instead of 6 from the other conditions.

This is a creature that averages 15 points per round lowered to 3. Enfeebling is a very small part of that. It contributes 3 of the 12 reduction. The majority of that reduction comes from the other modifiers, not from Enfeebling.

Now, this might work well for a solo. But, it's totally worthless on minions. And, if multiple PCs are ganging up on one monster to give it a -8 to hit, then in many 4 or 5 monster encounters, the other 3 or 4 monsters are often going to be at -0. There's just not enough gas in the tank to do this to all opponents.

And of course, any monster can focus attacks on the Paladin so that it does not get the -2.

Compare with Holy Strike. Let's say this is level 30, you hit with the at-will power 4 times per encounter (so you swing 8 times with 50% hit), and you have a +7 Wisdom modifier. Woohoo, you deal an extra 28 damage per encounter. That's around 10% of an average normal monster's HP at that level, and you'll probably be facing at least 3 of those normal monsters. Not that great.

Enfeebling Strike hitting 4 times per encounter, assuming the monster makes five attack rolls while affected (not so hard with an extra attack or AoE attacks), means one enemy attack every two encounters that would have hit misses instead. Its effects are obviously more variable. It should be a lot better against a solo creature, or creatures that make lots of attacks.

28 points of damage per encounter = 56 points of damage per two encounters.

What monster does 56 points of damage in the single attack that was stopped (or does x points of damage and incapacitates a PC for typically a round so that the PC cannot do any damage where the total of x and the damage the PC would have done is = 56)?

Personally, I think 56 points of damage is a LOT more effective than preventing 15 to 25 points of damage and possibly a totally debilitating condition (not all conditions are totally debilitating, nor do all attacks have conditions, nor do all conditions last for more than a round).

But to be fair, I suspect many 30th level Str Paladins will only have about a 20 Wisdom, not a 24 (but still, that's 40 points of damage in two encounters) because of MAD.

At level 1, Holy Strike certainly looks better, adding around 1/9 of an average normal monster's HP per hit. But then, Bolstering Strike looks pretty good too, cutting the damage you take roughly in half.

I'm not sure Bolstering Strike stops nearly that much for most Paladins.

Paladins are MAD PCs. Str/Cha, Wis and even a bit of Con and (Dex or Int). Something has to give and that something is sometimes Wisdom, especially for a Chaladin who already has the good Will save from Cha.

And, if a Chaladin is using Bolstering Strike, he is not using Enfeebling Strike as often.


I think people are drastically overemphasizing the utility and power of a -2 to hit (when it does help which tends to be less than 5% of the time at low level and a LOT less than 5% of the time at high level).

 

[FadedC]

It's easy enough to do the math comparing bolstering strike to enfeebling strike in terms of pure damage prevention.

Enfeebling strike has a 10% chance to turn an attack that would otherwise have hit into a miss. To determine how much that's worth, take a monsters average damage per round (assuming all hits) and divide by 10. So a monsters who hits for an average of 10 on all attacks will have enfeebling strike prevent an average of 1 damage.

So in order for enfeebling to be better then bolstering at preventing damage, the average damage the monster does must be more then 10 times the temporary hit points gained from bolstering. This will not usually be the case, but it is possible if the paladin either starts with low wisdom, or does not maintain his wisdom when he levels.

Enfeebling does have 3 strengths though
1) It protects people other then the paladin.
2) It tends to come out ahead if the monster has an area of effect that hits multiple targets
3) I'ts better when your not worried about the damage the monster does, but are instead worried about a nasty status effect he causes.

 

[Runestar]

Do multiple penalties stack? For example, if a marked foe affected by enfeebling strike decides to attack someone else, does he take -4 to-hit (-2 from divine challenge, -2 from enfeebling strike), or just -2 to-hit (because the -2 from these 2 sources do not stack)?

If it is the latter, then it just seems to be even more incentive for non-minion foes to not attack the paladin. He will still be getting -2 to-hit regardless of whether he attacks the paladin or someone else, and at the expense of taking a little damage, he can potentially deal more damage to the other PC, who is likely easier to hit and more fragile than the paladin.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Penalties do not have types, and add together, so long as they're not from the same power.