brash strike - too good or simply good?

[Mort]

Somewhat surprisingly (at least to me, considering how long martial power has been out) I haven't seen any real discussion of brash strike.

Brash strike seems extremely good - especially compared to the garbage that is careful attack. +2 to hit, +strength to damage and assuming the right weapon (hammer, mace or axe) +con to damage too.

This means easily a +6 to damage at first level and maybe higher (+8 for low level dwarves as dwarven weapon traing becomes very attractive here).

The supposed down side: The target of the attack gets combat advantage against you until the start of your next turn - translating to +2 to hit and possibly more damage. But I say "supposed down side" because as a defender one of your primary jobs is to focus attacks on yourself and away from allies; brash strike actually helps that. Enemies are more likely to attack you if they see you as exposed. Considering the large advantage (to hit and damage) the trade off seems very minor to nonexistent.

It just seems this is an automatic pick for any fighter with a good strength and a good con (probably a large majority of fighters) which may put it solidly into "too good" territory.

thoughts?

 

[Gort]

It is extremely good - far better than any of the other fighter at-wills. 90% of the time, monsters don't have any special "if you have combat advantage, then this" rule, and those that do will probably have a whole bunch of ways of getting combat advantage anyway, so it's hardly a disadvantage.

It's the default for the axe-wielding dwarf in my party - you just can't go wrong with more attack and more damage really.

 

[themilkman]

It's the default for the axe-wielding dwarf in my party - you just can't go wrong with more attack and more damage really.

The fighter in my game likes to use brash strike because it encourages monsters to attack him (against whom they have CA) rather than someone else (against whom they'll probably take -2 from being marked).

Of course, he does run into Lurkers from time to time who can tear him up over a few rounds if he always has CA. Overall, though, I think brash strike is a very smart move for fighters who focus on their defense.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

If you have to worry about Brash Strike don't think about Dual Strike, your worries will only rise.

And Comparing Brash Strike and Sure Strike is like comparing swords with oranges when you want to measure destructive power.

The real question is why only axe, hammer, and mace wielders got an own at-will power.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

If you are an Axe/Hammer fighter, it is a valid tactical choice but not an automatic choice. Otherwise... no.

For my human Bastard sword fighter I'm still not taking this over Cleave or Tide or Iron and I prefer crushing surge to Brash Strike for my 3rd at-will.

Typically, for a fighter, sacrificing defense is usually not a good choice. For the Axe fighter it lets him forray into striker territory but for a sword fighter (who already has +1 to hit over the axe fighter anyway) it's a sucker's game.

DPR, level 1, STR 18, COn 16, vs AC 18, Battleaxe

For most at will ; 4.75
With Brash Strike ; 7.5

Same fighter but using a longsword

For most at will; 4.675
With Brash Strike; 5.525

Meanwhile, you improve the monster's own DPR by conceding CA. Minimally, for the tactic to be worth it, you have to improve your DPR more than the monster's. With axe, it should usually be the case, with the sword it's likeley to be a pretty even proposition most of the time.

Bottom line; a fighter not using an axe/hammer should not be using brash strike.

The choice is defendable for an axe/hammer fighter though It would then ask him to consider the cost of opportunity. A non human fighter taking brash strike will have to live without cleave, tide of Iron or crushing surge, all every solid choices.

 

[Mort]

If you have to worry about Brash Strike don't think about Dual Strike, your worries will only rise.

And Comparing Brash Strike and Sure Strike is like comparing swords with oranges when you want to measure destructive power.

The real question is why only axe, hammer, and mace wielders got an own at-will power.

The two are clearly different and for different purposes, but I don't see how dual strike compares favorably.

1) dual strike means you are using an off hand weapon (unless you are using the clearly broken double weapons in adventurer's vault, but that's the weapon not the power)- this means less damage even if both hit.

2) you do not get strength bonus to damage - this becomes a bigger and bigger deal as you go up in level.

3) brash strike gives an additional bonus to damage with con making the damage disparity even larger.

And while tempest technique can give some good bonuses with dual strike, Battlerager Vigor gives some good bonuses with brash strike so that cancels out (TT gives a +4 to damage if both weapons hit, BRV gives a +2 but then you add the likely +6 from Brash strike so for anyone using it with BRV Brash Strike gives around +8 or higher to damage - which only goes up with level).

I haven't done any big math on the subject but I would be surprised if dual strike wins here, probably even with the brokeness that is the double sword or the double axe (besides if you allow them you allow the waraxe and/or the mordenkrad which will shift the advantage right back to brash strike).

 

[Gazzor]

It rocks at high level. An example from our group. Dwarf Fighter/ Pit Fighter lvl 17.

At level 17 he's on brash srike at +22 to hit, doing1D12+20 damage. He can have AC 35 due to a shield.

With dual strike he gets two attacks at +20 for D12+11 and D6+11. So damage is about on par, and his AC is only 33 (But brash strike is granting CA anyway).

However, he's wielding 2 jagged axes, so crits on a 19-20, with devastating critical and deadly axe, he does an extra 2D12+D10 or extra 2D6+1D10 on a crit. He also has reckless attack feat, so each crit triggers a free action basic attack of +20 vs AC for 1D12+17 (But he loses 2 AC that turn).
So dual strike means twice as much chance to add a load of extra damage to each hit. The best dual strike roll so far is 104 points in a round (2 crits followed by 2 reckles attacks hitting).


Cheers,

Gazzor

 

[Styracosaurus]

If you are jumping into a flanked position, then you may as well concede CA and use Brash Strike.

If you face a lot of minions then you don't need the damage, then Brash Strike is still worth +2 to hit.

Overall, Brash Strike is really good. I think that it would have been more balanced if it just gave you a -2 to AC that could potentially stack with CA.

 

[Stalker0]

Brash Strike....WOTC's errata to Sure Strike

 

[Aegeri]

Brash strike is good, but it becomes problematic if your DM uses lurker or skirmisher type monsters. It also becomes problematic when facing creatures with area attacks or other abilities, which normally don't hit as often but will when you concede constant combat advantage.

At high levels, that +2 you're giving up matters a huge deal and can mean the difference between being stunned or getting another round. It's amazing how often those little penalties/benefits can stack up, especially in longer fights in paragon/epic tiers.