Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mal Malenkirk" data-source="post: 4668141" data-attributes="member: 834">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, BattleaxeFor most at will ; 4.75With Brash Strike ; 7.5Same fighter but using a longswordFor most at will;  4.675With Brash Strike; 5.525Meanwhile, 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.</blockquote>