Shield Feint

[KarinsDad]

lets calculate:
+0,+5,+0,+5,+0
or
+0,+3,+3,+3,+3

+12 > +10

if you break up at one of the favorable numbered rounds, of course you get better numbers...

Ok, let's break it up in round 3 which is an unfavorable numbered round.


You are ignoring the reality of the real math for this fuzzy math.

It's not +3 every round. It's +3 IF it hits on the previous round and IF the Fighter can attack the same foe.

That's two IFs (only the first of which we'll look at).

Look at my previous 2 round example that I posted for Draco. Let's take that out to 3 rounds of Only Shield Feint vs. Shield Feint followed by Brash Strike:

8 possibilities:
(miss first miss second miss third,
miss first miss second hit third,
miss first hit second miss third,
miss first hit second hit third,
hit first miss second miss third,
hit first miss second hit third,
hit first hit second miss third,
hit first hit second hit third)

Shield Feint every round:

.45 * .45 * .45 * 0 hits +
.45 * .45 * .55 * 1 hits +
.45 * .55 * .30 * 1 hits +
.45 * .55 * .70 * 2 hits +
.55 * .30 * .45 * 1 hits +
.55 * .30 * .55 * 2 hits +
.55 * .70 * .30 * 2 hits +
.55 * .70 * .70 * 3 hits = 1.827375 hits in three rounds or 60.9125% average chance to hit

Do the same for Shield Feint followed by Brash Strike followed by Shield Feint (not even getting to a fourth round where Brash Strike ups the damage again).

.45 * .35 * .45 * 0 hits +
.45 * .35 * .55 * 1 hits +
.45 * .65 * .45 * 1 hits +
.45 * .65 * .55 * 2 hits +
.55 * .20 * .45 * 1 hits +
.55 * .20 * .55 * 2 hits +
.55 * .80 * .45 * 2 hits +
.55 * .80 * .55 * 3 hits = 1.8325 hits in three rounds or 61.0833% average chance to hit

Note: I double checked this math with Excel. I don't think you'll find a bug in it.


Even in the odd numbered rounds, the alternating At Wills average slightly more damage. They do it moreso in the even numbered rounds.

Feel free to take this out to 5 rounds or 7 rounds or whatever.


But as a general rule, one is not going to get past 4 rounds of this in a real game. The foe will be dead by then or the circumstances will have changed.

 

[DracoSuave]

<snip>

.55 * .70 * .70 * 3 hits = 1.827375 hits in three rounds or 60.9125% average chance to hit

<snip>

.55 * .80 * .55 * 3 hits = 1.8325 hits in three rounds or 61.0833% average chance to hit

1.8325 - 1.827375 = 0.005125

Aove guy at level 1, 1d10+4 damage, average 9.5.

Thus, a total DPR change of 0.0486875.

To put that into perspective... the kobold's 36 hit points means that in order to make the fight a single round quicker... combat would have to last... 20 rounds... against that single kobold. If combat is any quicker than that, the impact of the DPR change will not be enough to save a single attack against the players.

So... is -that- worth pissing away combat advantage AND an at-will for?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

ok, in this case, where you have a 55% chance to hit, you are really better alteranting for the first four rounds... really didn´t expect that

should have checked your fuzzy math myself.

But as Draco say: even if math 101 over 4 or less rounds will tell you that hit chance is increased, opportunity cost is too high.

lets check if using only brash strike may be even better:

.35^3*0+3*(.35^2*.65)*1+3*(.35*.65^2)*2+.65^3*3=1,95

also don´t forget your own example: combat advantag attacks are also all at +3. Especially in the round after brash strike both options, attacking the fighter and attacking the ranger, are easier/less dangerous.

 

[DracoSuave]

ok, in this case, where you have a 55% chance to hit, you are really better alteranting for the first four rounds... really didn´t expect that

should have checked your fuzzy math myself.

But as Draco say: even if math 101 over 4 or less rounds will tell you that hit chance is increased, opportunity cost is too high.

lets check if using only brash strike may be even better:

.35^3*0+3*(.35^2*.65)*1+3*(.35*.65^2)*2+.65^3*3=1,95

also don´t forget your own example: combat advantag attacks are also all at +3. Especially in the round after brash strike both options, attacking the fighter and attacking the ranger, are easier/less dangerous.

In that case tho, the ranger is expected to do higher damage per hit, and is already more accurate. Adding x/10 to his DPR to add y/10 to your own DPR, when x is greater than y, is automatically a suboptimal choice for you. In the ranger's case tho, it's generally more than x/10.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

didn´t understand what you are trying to say here, but lets just say:

alternating two at wills for a very very lousy damage increase is a bad idea, as is using an at will, that makes you a healing sponge and also does only very slightly more damage...

so we are back at shield feint only is the best idea in general, or even better follow up a shield feint with a good encounter attack.

 

[KarinsDad]

1.8325 - 1.827375 = 0.005125

Aove guy at level 1, 1d10+4 damage, average 9.5.

Thus, a total DPR change of 0.0486875.

To put that into perspective... the kobold's 36 hit points means that in order to make the fight a single round quicker... combat would have to last... 20 rounds... against that single kobold. If combat is any quicker than that, the impact of the DPR change will not be enough to save a single attack against the players.

So... is -that- worth pissing away combat advantage AND an at-will for?

This was worse case scenario of an odd number of rounds. UngeheuerLich claimed that the chance to hit would be better with an odd number of rounds and I merely showed him the math to illustrate that this is not necessarily true.

Two rounds was 59.125% to 64.125% or +1 to hit for an average of -1 defense.

Three rounds was 60.9125% to 61.0833% or +0 to hit for an average of -0.67 defense. Yup. That's not that good. But, I didn't say it was. I just said that the chance to hit was still better which it is.

Four round will be 61% to 64% or +0.67 to hit for an average of -1 defense

But, one will not often get to four rounds of being able to attack the same foe. The mega +3 will often be lost for a wide variety of reasons.

The OP originally took Brash Strike for his PC for a reason and wanted to take Shield Feint. The math just illustrates that he can still take both and still do reasonable damage.

Does he need two At Wills that boost to hit? Probably not. But, he can take them and doing so is not as sub-optimal as you are claiming.

The odds of getting to three rounds of At Wills only against the exact same foe tends to be pretty darn slim in 6 rounds encounters when the PC will often use Encounter powers for 2 or 3 (or more) of those rounds.

Two rounds will typically be the max that the exact same foe will be attacked with At Wills in most encounters. And 64.125% at -1 defense on average for two rounds is, from a purely damage perspective, better than Footwork Lure used on two rounds at 55% at -0 defense (course, Footwork Lure has other advantages which are less quantifiable).


And the Combat Advantage of Brash Strike isn't as bad in reality as it sounds either, especially with a Shield Fighter. Foes often have Combat Advantage anyway, plus, that foe might not even attack the Fighter. All in all, this set of scenarios does get the PC basically up to a 64% chance to hit which is a darn sight better than a 55% chance to hit of the other At Wills that you are so enamored with.

 

[DracoSuave]

And the Combat Advantage of Brash Strike isn't as bad in reality as it sounds either, especially with a Shield Fighter. Foes often have Combat Advantage anyway, plus, that foe might not even attack the Fighter.

Let's say you're a fighter with Con 12 (which it seems this guy has), at level 1, you've got 27 hps. Scale and shield gives you AC 19.

Against many monsters, combat advantage is +2 to hit.

Against a goblin blackblade, it's almost double damage and +2 to hit.

So, you've gone from needing a 14 to hit (0.35%) for 1d6+2 damage (5.5), for a DPR of 1.925, to 0.45% for 2d6+2 (9) for a DPR of 4.05.

So, you've doubled your intake of damage -right there- just by Brash Striking.

This, in turn, goes from about 1/13th of your total to over 1/7th. Over two rounds, that's over your surge value.

Contrast this with a charisma warlock with a measily AC of 14. 55% chance to hit X 5.5 = 3.025. Con 12, 24 hit points, so that's 1/8th of their hit ponts. Two rounds is -barely- over their surge value.

Congrats. You do less DPR than a feylock in exchange for being more squishy.

At this point, what you as a defender bring to the table... control... Brash strike doesn't control.... damage reduction... nope, no damage redux there... hard to hit? Nope... and the irony is... you're now the ideal target tactically speaking, because YOU are the squishy! So you're not even getting your punishment in.

Brash Strike, without +Con to damage, is absolutely TERRIBLE. No amount of 'But I use terrible tactics and we always allow enemies who get bonus damage to combat advantage to flank us' will mitigate that... Brash Strike and bad tactics is < anything else and good tactics.

You wanna Brash? Bring an Axe, or don't bother.


Or better yet, play a striker, cause that's what Brash Strike is for.

 

[renau1g]

Well you also need to pick your targets carefully, that rogue-ish looking fella, no I don't grant CA to him, I use my other at-will against him... now that ogre? Sure, I'll need to pound him for that extra damage. Also, note that as a defender your hp is much higher than most strikers (Con-barbarians excepted) so if you get hit more often vs. melee ranger/rogue. Good. That is your job. You might be "squishy" in that you are now slightly easier to hit, but again that is a good thing as you draw fire to yourself. The rogue or ranger with 16 AC or the fighter with 19 (20 with plate)... you'd be more likely to go after the real squishies in a lot of cases, especially where the other monster FF on them, but now if AC drops to 17, the fighter's a better choice.

 

[KarinsDad]

Let's say you're a fighter with Con 12 (which it seems this guy has), at level 1, you've got 27 hps. Scale and shield gives you AC 19.

Against many monsters, combat advantage is +2 to hit.

Against a goblin blackblade, it's almost double damage and +2 to hit.

So, you've gone from needing a 14 to hit (0.35%) for 1d6+2 damage (5.5), for a DPR of 1.925, to 0.45% for 2d6+2 (9) for a DPR of 4.05.

So, you've doubled your intake of damage -right there- just by Brash Striking.

That's a fairly weak argument.

Cause you know, 99% of creatures out there have the ability of:

Combat Advantage

The goblin blackblade deals an extra 1d6 damage against any target it has combat advantage against.

Really grasping at straws here Draco.

Maybe you'd like to come back to reality with an example that happens in a significant percentage of encounters as opposed to an extreme corner case.

Strawmans like these, they don't really illustrate your point.

Admin here. You are being rude and dismissive; please avoid this sort of tone entirely in the future. If you read your post and you think, "wow, I'm sounding like a jerk," then it's time to edit your post before clicking "submit."

We've been over this before. Please PM me if this is in the least bit unclear. ~ PCat

And yet again, the axe vs. sword argument is irrelevant to the conversation. +2 to hit is +2 to hit. It's often VERY helpful, especially if the foe is not attacking the fighter, or the foe dies, or the foe is dazed and the fighter can shift away after the attack, or the foe already has combat advantage.

Your argument is so narrowly focused here. It doesn't take into account other PCs tactics at all. It assumes that the Fighter will use Brash Strike when it is less advantageous to do so and will not use Brash Strike when it is more advantageous to do so. Why would a player do that?

Not everyone is an idiot that will use Brash Strike at first level against a goblin blackblade. Maybe you have players like that in your group. Sorry, but using a poor tactics rare example for your POV does little to support it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Maybe we play a different game... lowering defense as a standard tactic sounds bad, no matter how you try to justify it... even if i am easier to take out. That doesn´t make the nearly dead ranger less likely to be hit. And on top of it, if you don´t use shield feint (and hit) you give up an increased chance to kill the foe attacking the ranger. (Which really makes the decision harder for the enemy)
You could say, that a hit of brash strike may have taken out the enemy at the fighters regular turn... yes, if this is possible, brash strike is the right choice (if you don´t need less than strength modifier damage to kill, in which case reaping strike would be the right choice.)
If i want to be an easier target i am using a greatsword (fullblade) and use reaping strike.